LBF Travel Management Corp. v. DeRosa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LBF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT CORP. Case No.: 20-cv-2404-MMA (JLB) and MICHAEL THOMAS, 11 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 12 v. (1) RESETTING HEARING; AND 13 14 THOMAS DEROSA, [Doc. Nos. 203, 204, 205, 208, 210, 211]

Defendant. 15 THOMAS DEROSA, (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO FILE 16 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Counter-Claimant, 17 v. [Doc. Nos. 206, 221, 228, 231, 234] 18 LBF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT CORP. 19 and MICHAEL THOMAS, 20 Counter-Defendants.

21 22 THOMAS DEROSA, Third-Party Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 25 LBF TRAVEL, INC.; LBF TRAVEL HOLDINGS, LLC; MONDEE 26 HOLDINGS, LLC; MONDEE, INC.; and 27 PRASAD GUNDUMOGULA Third-Party Defendants. 28 1 Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and 2 Daubert motions. See Doc. Nos. 203–05, 208, 210, 211. Defendant and Counter- 3 Claimant Thomas DeRosa (“DeRosa”) also seeks to file evidence under seal. See Doc. 4 Nos. 206, 221, 228, 231, 234. DeRosa’s motions to seal are unopposed.1 5 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 6 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 7 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 8 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 9 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need 10 for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are 11 independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence 12 in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 13 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d 14 Cir. 1995)). As such, the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant. 15 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by 16 “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 17 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 18 the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178 (citations omitted) 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] 20 the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 21 records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 22 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the 23 sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting 24 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 25 26 1 In his motions to seal, DeRosa states that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs and the Third-Party Defendants 27 objected to the public filing of these Exhibits, on the basis that these exhibits contain information that they maintain is confidential.” Doc. Nos. 206-1 at 4; 221-1 at 4; 228-1 at 4; 231-1 at 4; 28 1 Having reviewed the motions and respective documents, the Court finds that 2 || DeRosa has shown compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. As DeRosa 3 || explains in his motions to seal, the exhibits contain information—specifically, “financial 4 || information of a corporation” or “business or legal communications’— that has been 5 || designated confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case, see Doc. 6 || No. 49, which the Court entered on September 28, 2021. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 206-1 at 3— 7 ||4 (explaining why the motion to seal should be granted); 234-1 at 3-6 (explaining the 8 |}same). And as this Court has previously recognized, confidential business materials may 9 || be properly sealed so as to prevent “improper use by competitors, “circumvent[ing] the 10 || time and resources necessary in developing [the competitor’s] own practices and 11 ||strategies.’” Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc., No. 14cv2129-MMA (AGS), 2017 U.S. 12 || Dist. LEXIS 182897, at *17 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) (quoting Algarin v. Maybelline, 13 || LLC, No. 12cv3000 AJB (DHB), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23882, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 14 }/2014)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS DeRosa’s motions to file documents under 15 |/seal and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file the following UNDER SEAL: 207, 222, 16 232, and 235. 17 Additionally, upon review of the parties briefing on the cross-motions for summary 18 ||judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony, the Court concludes oral argument 19 || would be beneficial to the Court. The Court RESETS the previously scheduled June 5, 20 hearing as to all pending motions to October 11, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 21 ||3C. See Doc. Nos. 203-05, 208, 210, 211. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 31, 2023 ; 24 Mitel U-(liphte 25 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 27 28