Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Row 44 Inc et al

Filing 77

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Motion to File Under Seal by Judge Gary A. Feess: Plaintiff's Motion to File Under Seal #76 is GRANTED, in part with respect to Exhibit 44, and Exhibit 49 to the Ostrow Decl. and all references thereto in Plaintiff's Opposition and Statement of Undisputed Facts, and is DENIED, in part with respect to Exhibit 63 and all references thereto in Plaintiff's Opposition and Statement of Undisputed Facts. Plaintiff is instructed to contact the Court Clerk to either (1) arrange to pick up the materials they requested be filed under seal for which the motion was denied or (2) inform the Court that it may destroy the documents. The hearing on the underlying motion is presently set to be heard at 9:30 A.M. on Monday November 3, 2014. So that the hearing may go forth at its set time, Plaintiff is additionally ORDERED to file on the public docket a redacted version of the Ostrow Decl. with the exhibits properly redacted in accordance with this Order, no later than close of business on Wednesday October 29, 2014. See document for details. (smo)

LINKS: 76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-11018 GAF (JCGx)

Title

Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Row 44 Inc et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 28, 2014

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr

None

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
I.
INTRODUCTION

The Court is in receipt of an application to file portions of Plaintiff Advanced Media
Networks, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “AMN”) Opposition to Defendants’1 Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and certain exhibits filed in support of such Opposition under seal. (Docket
No. 76 [Application to File Under Seal (“Appl.”)].) These exhibits include a settlement
agreement, financial documents, and excerpts of the deposition of Curtis Clark (“Clark Depo.
Excerpts”). (See id. at [Declaration of Seth H. Ostrow (“Ostrow Decl.”)] at Ex. 44 [Settlement
Agreement]; id. at Ex. 49 [Row 44's Balance Sheets]; id. at Ex. 63 [Clark Depo. Excerpts].)
Plaintiff has filed redacted versions of the memoranda, and statements of fact on the public
docket (Docket No. 73 [Redacted Statement of Undisputed Facts]; Docket No. 74 [Redacted
Opposition]) but has failed to file on the public docket a redacted version of the Ostrow Decl.
with any redacted or placeholder exhibits attached. After a review of all submitted materials and
this Court’s prior reasoning regarding sealing the Clark Depo. Excerpts in another case to which
Plaintiff was party, the Court finds that the information sought to be filed under seal is
confidential, except for the Clark Depo. Excerpts and references thereto.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal with regard to the
Clark Depo. Excerpts and GRANTS the motion with regard to the other exhibits sought to be

1

“Defendants” refers collectively to Row 44, Inc., Global Eagle Ent., Inc., and Southwest Airlines, Co.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINKS: 76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-11018 GAF (JCGx)

Date

Title

Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Row 44 Inc et al

October 28, 2014

filed under seal and references thereto. Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file on the
public docket a redacted version of the Ostrow Decl. with the exhibits properly redacted or with
placeholders for those granted as filed under seal in accordance with this order as set forth
below.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
While courts customarily allow the parties to establish ground rules for designating
material as confidential for discovery purposes, the Court does not cede to them ultimate
authority or responsibility over the sealing of documents. Thus, the fact that certain information
may fall within the ambit of the parties’ protective order is of limited importance to the Court in
determining whether or not an application to seal should be granted. The public has a “general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents” because it has an interest in “keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public
agencies.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98 (1978). A “strong
presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including
motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to
seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Id.
In light of the “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” a party should not
request that an entire document be filed under seal unless the document’s entire contents are
confidential. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Instead, a party should redact those portions of
the document that are confidential. The redacted copy should then be filed on the public docket
and an unredacted copy should be provided to the Court.
B. APPLICATION

It appears that most of the exhibits and references thereto may be filed under seal because
they have accurately been identified as confidential or proprietary. (See Appl. at 1; id. at
Settlement Agreement; id. at Row 44's Balance Sheets.) First, the Court finds that the
Settlement Agreement is clearly confidential and properly filed under seal. Additionally, while
“Plaintiff takes no position as to the propriety of Defendants’ designations” of Row 44's Balance
Sheets, the Court finds that such financial information is confidential and properly filed under
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINKS: 76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-11018 GAF (JCGx)

Date

Title

Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Row 44 Inc et al

October 28, 2014

seal.
However, the Court does not find any reason to grant Plaintiff’s request to file under seal
the Clark Depo. Excerpts and references thereto in Plaintiff’s Opposition and Statement of
Undisputed Facts. (See id. at Ex. 63 [Clark Depo. Excerpts].) Plaintiff’s Application merely
asserts the Clark Depo. Excerpts were previously designated as “Highly Confidential” in other
litigation and thus should be designated as so here as well. (See id. at 1-2.) However, this Court
previously denied a request to file the excerpts from the Curtis Clark deposition under seal in a
an earlier case to which Plaintiff was party. (See CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx) at Docket No. 141
[6/14/13 Order Denying Motion to File Under Seal].) After a careful review of the Clark Depo.
Excerpts, the Court can see no reason the material is confidential such that it should be filed
under seal.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED, in part with respect to
Exhibit 44, and Exhibit 49 to the Ostrow Decl. and all references thereto in Plaintiff’s
Opposition and Statement of Undisputed Facts, and is DENIED, in part with respect to Exhibit
63 and all references thereto in Plaintiff’s Opposition and Statement of Undisputed Facts.
Plaintiff is instructed to contact the Court Clerk to either (1) arrange to pick up the
materials they requested be filed under seal for which the motion was denied or (2) inform
the Court that it may destroy the documents.
The hearing on the underlying motion is presently set to be heard at 9:30 A.M. on
Monday November 3, 2014. So that the hearing may go forth at its set time, Plaintiff is
additionally ORDERED to file on the public docket a redacted version of the Ostrow Decl. with
the exhibits properly redacted in accordance with this Order, no later than close of business on
Wednesday October 29, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3