CivitasDX LLC v. Trilogy Federal, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIVITASDX LLC, et al. Case No. 24-cv-1522-MMA-MSB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 TRILOGY FEDERAL, LLC, [Doc. No. 19] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs CivitasDX LLC and Cognitive Medical 22 Systems, Inc.’s ex parte motion to file under seal an unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ 23 amended complaint, as well as Exhibits A and B. Doc. No. 19. Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 24 is unopposed to date. 25 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 26 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 27 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 28 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 1 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need 2 for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are 3 independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence 4 in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 5 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d 6 Cir. 1995)). As such, the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant. 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by 8 “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 9 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 10 the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178 (citations omitted) 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] 12 the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 13 records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 14 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the 15 sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting 16 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 17 Having reviewed the motion and respective documents, the Court finds that 18 Plaintiffs have shown compelling reasons to file the unredacted amended complaint, 19 along with Exhibits A and B, under seal. See, e.g., Clark v. InComm Fin. Servs., Inc., 20 No. EDCV221839JGBSHKX, 2024 WL 1699346, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024) (“[T]he 21 proposed redacted material also contains ‘the personal contact information of Plaintiff 22 Clark and several non-parties, including email addresses and telephone numbers.’ […] 23 Courts frequently seal personal contact information, such as email addresses and phone 24 numbers, especially for third parties.”); In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales 25 Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2672 CRB (JSC), 2016 WL 11807130, at *2 26 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016) (“There is a compelling reason for sealing, namely, the 27 disclosure of the non-party employees’ names would infringe on those individuals’ 28 privacy rights.”). l Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of 2 || Court to file Doc. No. 20 UNDER SEAL. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 22, 2025 5 Wiathst LTUu- / hiphlr 6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28