Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC's ex parte application to file under seal the unredacted versions of its First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service, which contained the Defendant's name and identifying information. The court granted the application, directing the Clerk to file the unredacted documents under seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte application to file under seal the unredacted First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte application. ECF No. 11. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the unredacted Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service [ECF No. 12], under seal.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's framework for sealing judicial records, identifying the presumption of public access and the requirement to show 'compelling reasons' or 'good cause' to overcome it. The court determined that the documents were 'more than tangentially related to the merits' (as they are the operative complaint) and thus applied the 'compelling reasons' standard. The court found that the privacy interests of the defendant (a 'John Doe' in a copyright case) outweighed public access at this early stage, which is a defensible application of the balancing test used in similar cases within the district. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Center for Auto Safety, Kamakana) and applies them to the specific facts (sealing a complaint containing personal identifying information). The court explicitly balances the interests and finds compelling reasons exist. The reasoning is complete and directly answers the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-543-RSH-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE UNDER SEAL 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP [ECF No. 11] address 70.95.78.237, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file under seal unredacted 19 versions of its First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service. ECF 20 No. 11. Plaintiff has filed in the public record versions of these documents with 21 Defendant’s name and identifying information redacted. ECF No. 10. 22 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 24 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept 25 secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City 26 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 27 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is 1 ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because 2 they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 3 confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 4 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 5 (2d Cir. 1995)). 6 To overcome this presumption of access, a party must show either “good cause” or 7 “compelling reasons” to seal a record, depending on the motion to which the record relates. 8 Id. at 1096-97. The Ninth Circuit has made it “clear that public access to filed motions and 9 their attachments does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically 10 ‘dispositive.’” Id. at 1100-01 (“[O]ur circuit looks past the literal 11 dispositive/nondispositive label.”). “Rather, public access will turn on whether the motion 12 is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. If the motion is “more than 13 tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the movant must show “compelling reasons” 14 for overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. Id. at 1096-99, 1101. Otherwise, 15 a party need only show good cause. Id.; see, e.g., Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14-cv- 16 2129-MMA-AGS, 2017 WL 5029612, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). “[T]he ‘compelling 17 reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 18 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010)). 19 Here, the information Plaintiff seeks to seal includes the Defendant’s name, address, 20 and other details that could be used to identify Defendant. Plaintiff has filed a redacted 21 copy of the Amended Complaint, which provides the public access to all other information 22 in the pleading. See ECF No. 10. The redactions are limited to addressing privacy concerns. 23 Balancing the need for public access and the Parties’ interests in keeping this information 24 private, the Court finds compelling reasons outweigh public access at this very early stage 25 in the litigation. 26 // 27 // 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte application. ECF No. 11. The 2 ||Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the unredacted Amended Complaint, proposed 3 ||summons, and return of service [ECF No. 12], under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. eke 7 ¢ Lowe 5 Dated: October 17, 2024 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28