Birch v. Family First Life, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendants Shawn Meaike and Andrew Taylor moved for leave to file a confidential compensation agreement under seal in connection with their pending motion to dismiss. The court granted the unopposed motion, finding that the defendants demonstrated compelling reasons to protect the confidential business information from disclosure.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion for leave to file documents under seal is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file documents under seal and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 23 UNDER SEAL.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's standard for sealing judicial records, which requires a showing of compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. The order recites that the motion was unopposed and that the defendants identified specific confidential business information (bonus amounts and obligations) whose disclosure would harm their competitive standing. This satisfies the 'compelling reason' requirement under Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu. The reliance on prior district court orders (Baker, Algarin) is consistent with the principle that confidential business materials may be sealed to prevent improper use by competitors. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana, Center for Auto Safety) and the Supreme Court (Nixon). It applies the standard to the specific facts presented (unopposed motion, specific confidential business information, competitive harm). It cites persuasive district court authority to support the specific type of harm alleged. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed motion of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GREG BIRCH, individually and on behalf Case No. 22-cv-815-MMA (NLS) of all others similarly situated, et al., 11 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs, 12 SHAWN MEAIKE AND ANDREW v. TAYLOR’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 13 TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, et al., 14 SEAL Defendants. 15 [Doc. No. 22] 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants Shawn Meaike and Andrew Taylor’s 18 (“Defendants”) motion to file documents under seal in relation to their pending motion to 19 dismiss. Doc. Nos. 20, 22. Defendants seek to file a confidential compensation 20 agreement (the “Bonus Agreement”) and references thereto in their motion to dismiss 21 under seal.1 Doc. No. 22 at 2.2 The motion to seal is unopposed. See Doc. No. 26. 22 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 23 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 25 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 26 27 1 Defendants filed redacted versions of these documents. See Doc. No. 20. 28 1 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need 2 for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are 3 independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence 4 in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 5 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d 6 Cir. 1995)). As such, “the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant.” 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by 8 “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 9 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 10 the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178 (citations omitted) 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] 12 the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 13 records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 14 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the 15 sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting 16 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 17 Having reviewed the motion and respective documents, the Court finds that 18 Defendants have shown compelling reasons to file the Bonus Agreement and references 19 thereto under seal. As Defendants explain, the Bonus Agreement “contains confidential 20 information relating to [Plaintiff Greg] Birch’s business relationship with [Defendants] 21 Meaike and Family First Life, LLC.” Doc. No. 22 at 2. Defendants further represent that 22 “[t]he disclosure of the specific details concerning the bonus amount and [Plaintiff] 23 Birch’s corresponding obligations would harm [Defendants] Meaike and FFL’s 24 competitive standing.” Id. As the Court has previously recognized, such confidential 25 business materials may be properly sealed so as to prevent “improper use by competitors, 26 ‘circumvent[ing] the time and resources necessary in developing [the competitor’s] own 27 practices and strategies.’” Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc., No. 14-cv-2129-MMA (AGS), 28 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182897, at *17 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) (quoting Algarin v. | || Maybelline, LLC, No. 12-cv-3000-AJB (DHB), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23882, at *9 2 ||(S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)). 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file documents under seal 4 ||and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 23 UNDER SEAL. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: October 17, 2022 7 MWiikirk Jd - hipler 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28