3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to seal three images attached to their supplemental briefing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. The Court granted the motion, directing the Clerk to file the documents under seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 503) is granted.“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file the document lodged at Dkt. No. 504 under seal.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the applicable legal standard (compelling reasons) for sealing documents related to a motion for sanctions. It relied on its prior order in the same case (Dkt. No. 608) which had already found that similar images contained proprietary business information whose disclosure would harm Defendants' competitive standing. Applying this prior finding to the specific images in the current motion is a logical and legally sound extension of the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It correctly identifies the burden and standard of review for sealing judicial records. It properly categorizes the underlying motion (sanctions) as one requiring the 'compelling reasons' standard. The factual basis for the ruling is derived from the court's own prior order in the same case, which is a permissible and efficient method of adjudication. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine sealing order based on prior findings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO SEAL 14 BEN WYNNE, et al., [Dkt. No. 503] 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On August 21, 2024, the Court ruled on several motions to file documents under seal 20 related to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions at Dkt. No. 343. Dkt. No. 608 (granting or 21 granting in part motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 343, 358, 372, 374, and 475). The August 21 22 Order did not include Dkt. No. 503, which is another motion to seal related to the sanctions 23 motion. That motion concerns three images that were admitted at the March 27, 2024 24 evidentiary hearing and that were attached to Defendants’ “Supplemental Briefing” in 25 opposition to the sanctions motion. Dkt. No. 502-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 26 Court GRANTS the motion to seal and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file the documents 27 lodged at Dkt. No. 504 under seal. 28 / / / 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARDS 3 The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 4 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 5 589, 597 (1978). When evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts start with “a 6 strong presumption in favor of access” to those records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 7 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party requesting sealing bears the 8 burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The showing required depends upon 9 whether the underlying motion is “closely related” to the merits of the case—in which case 10 the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal—or is only “tangentially related” 11 to the merits, which requires a less demanding showing of “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto 12 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 13 Here, the compelling reasons standard applies “because the relief requested by 14 plaintiff[] would, if granted, require the District Court to adopt presumptions as to the 15 merits of plaintiffs’ claims at trial.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas, No. 16 317CV02366BASKSC, 2021 WL 666861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021); Keating v. 17 Jastremski, No. 3:15-cv-00057-L-AGS, 2020 WL 1813549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) 18 (applying compelling reasons standard to motion for terminating sanctions). 19 III. 20 DISCUSSION 21 In its August 21, 2024 Order, the Court discussed at length the applicability of the 22 compelling reasons standard to each of the documents the parties sought to file under seal. 23 Included among these were images contained in declarations that contained “proprietary 24 business information, the disclosure of which could harm Defendants’ competitive 25 standing.” Dkt. No. 608 at 6 (citing Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp., LLC, No 19-CV- 26 01878-HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (granting motion to seal 27 “confidential and proprietary business information”)). The same compelling reasons exist 28 to file the exhibit containing the three images at issue under seal. I IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file the 4 ||document lodged at Dkt. No. 504 under seal. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 3, 2025 _—_— 8 Tb lho a ? □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28