Mighty Enterprises, Inc. v. She Hong Industrial Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 112

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS APPLICATION to file Exhibits E and F to She Hong Industrial Co. Ltd.s Motion In Limine under seal 108 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc). Modified on 2/11/2016 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MIGHTY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 2:14-cv-06516-ODW (GJSx)

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

SHE HONG INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD,
Defendant.

15

APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL [108]

16
17
18

On February 9, 2016, Defendant She Hong Industrial Co. Ltd. filed an

19

Application to File Under Seal the full expert report and deposition transcript of

20

Plaintiff Mighty Enterprises, Inc.’s damages expert Jason Engel. (ECF No. 108.)

21

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong

22

presumption in favor of access is the starting point. A party seeking to seal a judicial

23

record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the

24

compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons

25

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and

26

the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

27

447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations, internal quotation marks, and

28

brackets omitted).

1

In this district, an application to file documents under seal must, among other

2

things, be accompanied by a declaration “establishing good cause or demonstrating

3

compelling reasons why the strong presumption of public access in civil cases should

4

be overcome, with citations to the applicable legal standard.”

5

5.2.2(a)(i)(1). “That the information may have been designated confidential pursuant

6

to a protective order is not sufficient justification for filing under seal.” Id. Moreover,

7

the applicant must file “[a] proposed order, narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

8

material.” C.D. Cal. R. 79-5.2.2(a)(ii).

C.D. Cal. R. 79-

9

Here, Defendant does not show that sealing Mr. Engel’s report and deposition

10

transcript is warranted. Defendant cites the protective order entered in this action, but

11

this alone does not warrant sealing records. C.D. Cal. R. 79-5.2.2(a)(i). Moreover,

12

Defendant’s bare statement that “She Hong believes that Mighty Enterprises, Inc.

13

could be adversely affected as these two documents may contain confidential business

14

information not otherwise available to the public” is insufficiently specific to

15

overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents.

16

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Finally, it appears unnecessary to seal the entire

17

expert report and deposition transcript; Defendant should seek to seal only those pages

18

(or portions thereof) that actually reflect sensitive information rather than a blanket

19

sealing of the whole document (unless such a broad sealing order is truly necessary).

20

For these reasons, Defendant’s Application to File Under Seal is DENIED

21

without prejudice. Defendant may refile an application that addresses the foregoing

22

issues.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

February 11, 2016

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2