Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed its own sealed order regarding Daubert motions and summary judgment to determine if it should remain under seal. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the order for review.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the January 2, 2020 Order“the Court ORDERS the parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order directly to the undersigned’ Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, no later than January 10, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the presumption of public access to court records by finding that compelling reasons did not justify sealing the entire order. Requiring a joint redaction proposal is a standard procedural mechanism to balance privacy interests with public access. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly cites Ninth Circuit precedent establishing the presumption of public access and the requirement for compelling reasons to seal records. The procedural step of requesting a joint redaction proposal is appropriate and consistent with the cited law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Case No.: 18cv73-MMA (AGS) 11 California limited liability company, ORDER RE: REDACTED VERSION 12 OF JANUARY 2, 2020 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On January 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order ruling on Defendant Ontel Products 19 Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Daubert motions and motion for summary judgment. See 20 SEALED Doc. No. 130. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Order under 21 seal.1 “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court finds that compelling reasons 25 do not justify maintaining the entirety of the Order under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 26 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court will issue a 27 28 1 redacted version of the Order. 2 To assist the Court in determining the appropriate extent of the redactions, and in 3 || light of the Court’s sealing order (Doc. No. 116), the Court ORDERS the parties to 4 submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order directly to the undersigned’ 5 || Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, no later than 6 || January 10, 2020. The Court will review the proposed submission and issue a redacted 7 || version of the January 2, 2020 Order in due course. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: January 3, 2020 12 phi LTu- / hilt 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28