Cacique Inc v. Reynaldos Mexican Food Company LLC et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF CACIQUES APPLICATION TO FILE OPPOSITION UNDER SEAL #98 AND ORDER UNSEALING DEFENDANT REYNALDOS MEXICANS STATEMENT OFUNCONTROVERTED FACTS #87 by Judge Otis D. Wright, I:(1) Caciques Application to File Opposition to Reynaldos Motion for Summary Judgment on Trademark/Trade Dress Under Seal is DENIED. (ECF No. 98.) (2) The Courts Order sealing Reynaldos Mexicans Corrected Statement of Uncontroverted Facts is VACATED. (ECF No. 88.) (3) Reynaldos Mexicans Corrected Statement of Uncontroverted Facts shall be UNSEALED by the clerk of the court. (ECF No. 87.) (lc). Modified on 12/27/2013 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:13-cv-1018-ODW (MLGx)

CACIQUE, INC.,
v.

Plaintiff,

REYNALDO’S MEXICAN FOOD
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
CACIQUE’S APPLICATION TO
FILE OPPOSITION UNDER SEAL
[98] AND ORDER UNSEALING
DEFENDANT REYNALDO’S
MEXICAN’S STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS [87]

15
16

Give someone an inch and they will take a mile. The applications to seal

17

documents in this case have gotten out of hand. The only documents to be sealed in

18

this action relate to the Cross-Motions for Summary on Defendant Reynaldo’s

19

Mexican Food Company’s Counterclaim. (ECF Nos. 41, 75.) These Cross-Motions

20

relate to a confidential settlement agreement that this Court ordered sealed in the early

21

stages of this case.

22

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is “clear that the courts

23

of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

24

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

25

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has

26

stated that there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v.

27

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to

28

override this weighty presumption, a party must demonstrate “sufficiently compelling

1

reasons” for sealing documents.

Id. Any under seal request “must articulate

2

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty

3

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A court will then balance the

4

public interest in access with the confidentiality and potential for misuse of the

5

information. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

6

Before the Court is Plaintiff Cacique, Inc.’s Application to File Opposition to

7

Reynaldo’s Mexican’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Trademark/Trade Dress

8

Under Seal. (ECF No. 98.) The Court sees no reason why the entire opposition

9

including supporting documents needs to be under seal. The Court recognizes that it

10

recently allowed Reynaldo’s Mexican to file its Corrected Statement of

11

Uncontroverted Facts under seal. Upon further review, the Court finds that the entire

12

document is not the proper subject of an under seal order. Only one or two paragraphs

13

contain financial information, and the Court fails to see, without more information,

14

why the entire document should be sealed.

15

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:

16

(1) Cacique’s Application to File Opposition to Reynaldo’s Motion for Summary

17

Judgment on Trademark/Trade Dress Under Seal is DENIED. (ECF No. 98.)

18

(2) The Court’s Order sealing Reynaldo’s Mexican’s Corrected Statement of

19
20

Uncontroverted Facts is VACATED. (ECF No. 88.)
(3) Reynaldo’s Mexican’s Corrected Statement of Uncontroverted Facts shall be

21

UNSEALED by the clerk of the court. (ECF No. 87.)

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

December 27, 2013

25
26
27

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2