TV Ears, Inc. v. Joyshiya Development Limited
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. moved to file documents under seal that had been designated as confidential by Defendant Shenzhen Simolio. The court ordered the defendant to file a response to the motion by November 8, 2021, noting that a mere 'confidential' designation does not meet the compelling reasons standard required for sealing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant Shenzhen Simolio ordered to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal.“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Shenzhen Simolio shall file a Response to the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 36) on or before November 8, 2021.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of public access by showing compelling reasons. By ordering the opposing party to respond, the court is allowing the parties to brief the specific factual basis for the seal, which is a standard procedural step when a motion to seal is contested or lacks sufficient initial showing. The footnote correctly cites the 9th Circuit standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard from Kamakana. It appropriately rejects the notion that a 'confidential' label is sufficient for sealing, citing recent district court authority. The order to allow the defendant to respond is a reasonable procedural mechanism to ensure the court has a full record of the specific factual findings required to justify the seal before ruling on the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TV EARS, INC., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01708-WQH-BGS Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 JOYSHIYA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; SHENZHEN 15 SUPERSTAR ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SHENZHEN 16 JOYSHIYA ELECTRONIC CO. 17 LTD.; SHENZHEN SIMOLIO 18 ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., Defendants. 19 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. filed a Motion to File Documents Under 22 Seal. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff seeks to file unredacted documents in support of its 23 Opposition to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd.’s (“Shenzhen Simolio”) 24 Motion to Dismiss, which have been marked as “confidential” by Defendant Shenzhen 25 Simolio.1 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal states that the documents at issue were produced by 28 1 A party seeking to file a document under seal as an attachment to a dispositive 2 || motion “bears the burden of overcoming th[e] strong presumption [in favor of public access 3 judicial records] by meeting the compelling reasons standard.” Kamakana y. City of 4 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “[T]he party must articulate compelling 5 ||reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access 6 |}and the public policies favoring disclosure... .” Jd. at 1178-79. The designation of a 7 || document as “confidential” does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. See Houston 8 || Cas. Co. v. Cibus US LLC, No. 19-cv-00828-BAS-LL, 2021 WL 3678599, at *2 (Aug. 19, 9 2021) (ordering a party to file a response “that explains why there are compelling reasons 10 seal information . . . designated as confidential”). 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Shenzhen Simolio shall file a Response 12 || to the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 36) on or before November 8, 2021. 13 || Dated: November 1, 2021 BE: eg Ze. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 || authorized as to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio and Zhuoya Gao, and the Declaration of Mark G. Clark 28 offered in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio’s Motion to Dismiss states that the documents were produced by Defendant Shenzhen Simolio.