ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [Doc. 91]

M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file documents under seal. Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from "grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation," a strong presumption applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. Id. at 1178.1

Whether a party's proffered reasons for filing documents under seal are compelling is fact specific and left to the "sound discretion of the trial court." Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). If public access to a document might harm a litigant's competitive standing in its business, the Court has discretion to allow a party to file the document under seal. Id. at 598-99. Here, Plaintiff seeks to file under seal documents regarding the management of clinical trials and Defendant's internal operating policies and procedures. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs submit declaration testimony from Ron Kraus ("Kraus") one of Defendant's corporate vice presidents. (Kraus Decl. [Doc. 91-1].) In his declaration, Kraus testifies that Defendant safeguards these documents as confidential because their public disclosure would erode a competitive business advantage in successfully conducting clinical trials of pharmaceutical and medical devices. (Id.) Having reviewed Kraus' declaration and the underlying documents, the Court finds that public disclosure of these documents might harm Defendant's competitive standing in its business. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to file these documents under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.