Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. DG in PB, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The Stores moved for leave to file four invoices under seal in support of their opposition to a motion for summary judgment, citing a protective order and concerns about triggering further litigation. The Court denied the motion to seal but ordered the Stores to file redacted versions of the documents by September 16, 2020, with the names of non-party entities redacted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file documents under seal is denied.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's strong presumption in favor of access to court records. The movant failed to provide the specific factual findings required to overcome this presumption, and the court correctly noted that a protective order does not automatically mandate sealing in the public docket, nor does the mere threat of further litigation justify sealing. |
Stores are ordered to file redacted versions of the documents by September 16, 2020, redacting the names of non-party entities.“the Court ORDERS that the Stores file redacted versions of these documents by September 16, 2020. Specifically, the Court orders that the names of any entities who are not Parties to this litigation be redacted.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to balance the public's right of access with the privacy interests of non-parties. By ordering redaction of non-party names rather than full sealing, the court protected the privacy of individuals not represented in the litigation while maintaining transparency regarding the parties' financial transactions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the governing standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana and Foltz) and applies it to the specific facts presented. The court properly rejected the argument that a protective order automatically requires sealing in the public docket and correctly identified that the threat of further litigation is not a valid basis for sealing. The alternative order to redact non-party names is a reasonable exercise of discretion to protect privacy interests while maintaining public access to the core litigation documents.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP Case No.: 18-cv-840-GPC-BGS 12 LITIGATION. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND ORDERING MOVANT TO 14 FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS. 15 (ECF No. 270.) 16 17 On August 14, 2020, the Stores moved for leave to file four documents under seal 18 in support of their response to Tauler Smith’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 19 270. These invoices reflect the proceeds obtained by Tauler Smith, and disbursements 20 made therefrom, while litigating and settling claims advanced on behalf of the alleged 21 association-in-fact enterprise. ECF Nos. 271-1, 271-2, 271-3, 271-4. The Stores offer two 22 reasons for sealing the documents: (1) that they were produced as confidential in line 23 with an existing protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on June 24 19, 2020, ECF No. 235, and (2) that Outlaw is concerned filing them without seal would 25 trigger additional litigation from Tauler Smith. ECF No. 271 at 2–4. 26 The reasons put forward in the motion are insufficient to provide for sealing. 27 Courts apply a “strong presumption in favor of access” to documents filed in litigation. 1 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). To 2 overcome that presumption, the movant must “articulate compelling reasons supported by 3 specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 4 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 5 process.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). 7 Here, there is no indication of what “specific facts” would merit sealing these 8 documents as opposed to filing them publicly, and that showing is required even in the 9 face of a protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. In addition, the fact that filing a 10 document without seal may expose a party “to further litigation will not, without more, 11 compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Tauler Smith, moreover, has not filed a response 12 to this motion nor addressed whether the documents should be sealed in its reply to the 13 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 280. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal. Nonetheless, 15 because the Court may reference these documents in its forthcoming Order on Tauler 16 Smith’s motion for summary judgment, the Court ORDERS that the Stores file redacted 17 versions of these documents by September 16, 2020. Specifically, the Court orders that 18 the names of any entities who are not Parties to this litigation be redacted. This will 19 protect the privacy of non-parties to this litigation who may have obtained or provided 20 payments noted in the invoice confidentially, and who may wish to not be associated with 21 this litigation but are not otherwise represented here. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. 22 Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988-MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) 23 (citing In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 190 (1st Cir. 2003)) (finding non-party’s 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 || privacy interest in personal financial information amounted to good cause). Any Party 2 move to file unredacted versions at any time. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: September 15, 2020 2 << 6 Hon. athe Coke 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