Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC v. Autel US Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to seal portions of their opposition to a contempt motion, citing confidential settlement agreements and forensic investigations. The court granted the motion in its entirety, finding that good cause and compelling reasons existed to justify sealing the identified materials.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to File Under Seal granted“The Court grants Defendants’ motion to file under seal in its entirety.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Nixon v. Warner Communications and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the supervisory power over court records. The court found that the specific materials (settlement agreements and forensic investigations) fit within the categories of materials typically protected from disclosure, such as trade secrets and privacy interests. The finding of 'good cause and compelling reasons' is consistent with the legal framework for sealing in the Ninth Circuit. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standard for sealing court records in the Ninth Circuit, citing both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority. It applies these standards to the specific facts (confidential settlement and forensic data) and concludes that good cause exists. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural sealing order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MITCHELL REPAIR INFORMATION Case No.: 3:21-cv-01339-CAB-BGS COMPANY, LLC, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 11 FILE UNDER SEAL v. 12 AUTEL US INC., et al., [Doc. No. 81] 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Defendants Autel, US Inc. and Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. 17 (“Defendants” or “Autel”) have moved to seal portions of their forthcoming opposition to 18 Plaintiff’s filed contempt motion. [Doc. No. 81.] 19 20 “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has 21 been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Nixon 22 v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978); see Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. 23 24 Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting considerations 25 that weigh against disclosure include “the likelihood of an improper use, including . . . 26 trade secret materials; infringement of fair trial rights of the defendants or third persons; 27 28 and residual privacy rights”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 1 The materials that Defendants seek sealed include documents/communications relating to a confidential settlement agreement and confidential forensic investigations (as 3 specifically identified by Defendants in their motion). Numerous courts have found such 4 y 5 || materials sealable. See, e.g., Johnson v. Barber & Assocs. LLC, No. 3:24-CV-00214-SLG, 6 2025 WL 417786, at *4 (D. Alaska Feb. 6, 2025) (recognizing well-established policy of 7 g protecting confidential materials). 9 Having reviewed the identified documents and the accompanying declaration, the 10 Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently shown that good cause and compelling 1] 12 || Feasons exist to justify sealing. The Court notes that the documents are being filed under 13 to resolve a dispute related to the permanent injunction filed in this case. [Doc. No. 64.] The Court grants Defendants’ motion to file under seal in its entirety. 15 16 17 It is SO ORDERED. 18 Ok 19 Dated: August 15, 2025 - Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28