DS Advanced Enterprises, LTD. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant Lowe's moved to seal confidential documents intended for use in Plaintiff's pending motion for reconsideration and opposition to attorney fees. The Court granted the motion, ordering that the identified documents be filed under seal due to good cause and the disclosure of sensitive commercial information.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to seal documents granted“The Court hereby ORDERS that any future incorporation of the documents lodged Defendant’s Exs. A-T be filed under seal.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing, which is the correct standard for non-dispositive filings containing sensitive commercial information. The court cited Foltz v. State Farm for the general proposition and San Diego Detox for the specific application to commercial data. The finding that the documents have 'little relevance' to the remaining issues supports the decision to seal rather than litigate their necessity, as the primary purpose of sealing is to protect trade secrets from unnecessary public disclosure. The order is procedurally sound and consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause) and applies it to the specific facts (sensitive commercial information). It distinguishes the filings as non-dispositive, which is relevant to the balancing test. The reliance on recent district court authority (San Diego Detox) alongside binding circuit authority (Foltz) is appropriate. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine sealing order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DS ADVANCED ENTERPRISES, LTD., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01335-CAB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS 13 v. 14 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, [ECF No. 76] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Defendant has notified the Court that Plaintiff intends to file documents designated 19 as confidential by protective order in its (1) filing for reconsideration of the Court’s grant 20 of summary judgment and (2) in any opposition to Defendant’s request for attorney fees. 21 [ECF No. 76.] Neither of these filings can be classified as dispositive. The Court has 22 reviewed the documents at issue and the Defendant’s related representations. The 23 identified documents appear to have little relevance to the issues remaining before the 24 Court. The Court finds that there is good cause for filing these documents under seal. See 25 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, 26 the Court finds compelling reasons for their sealing based on their disclosure of sensitive 27 commercial information. See San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego, LLC, No. 28 3:22-CV-01145-RBM-DDL, 2024 WL 3610965, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2024). 1 The Court hereby ORDERS that any future incorporation of the documents lodged 2 Defendant’s Exs. A-T be filed under seal. [See Decl. of Mr. Scott D. Stimpson, ECF 3 ||No. 76-2 at 2-4.] Defendant should specifically identify by motion any documents that 4 should be sealed in Plaintiff’s filed motion for reconsideration. [ECF No. 79.] 5 6 || Dated: October 30, 2024 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28