Television Education, Inc. v. Contractors Intelligence School, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/6/2017 re 48 , 53 , 58 Requests to Seal Document(s): IT IS ORDERED that the parties' requests to seal in connection with the motion for preliminary injunction and plaintiff's ex parte motion to strike are DENIED without prejudice.. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

TELEVISION EDUCATION, INC.,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

CIV. NO. 2:16-01433 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

v.
CONTRACTORS INTELLGIENCE
SCHOOL, INC.; CONTRACTORS
PUBLISHER, INC.; LEONID
VORONTSOV; OKSANA VORONTSOV;
and DOES 1 through 25;
Defendants.

19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Television Education, Inc. brought this action against

22

Contractors Intelligence School and Contractors Publisher for

23

copyright infringement.

24

requests to seal in connection with plaintiff’s motion for

25

preliminary injunction and plaintiff’s ex parte application to

26

strike Docket Number 50-9 because it erroneously filed the

27

unredacted Cohen Declaration.

28

Before the court is the parties’

(Docket Nos. 48, 53, 58.)

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the
1

1

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

2

access.

3

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

4

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

5

general history of access and the public policies favoring

6

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

7

judicial process.”

8

then must balance the competing interests of the public and the

9

party seeking to keep records secret.

10

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling

Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).

The court

Id. at 1179.

Plaintiff moves to seal unredacted versions of the

11

Cohen Declaration, Corbett Declaration, and memorandum of points

12

and authorities in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

13

injunction.

14

redacted version appears to omit 43 exhibits and excerpts in the

15

memorandum of points and authorities.

16

exhibits from the Kravchuk and Vorontsov Declarations.

17

Plaintiff does not explain what is redacted, but the

Defendants move to seal 11

Plaintiff contends the materials should be sealed

18

pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No.

19

32) signed by Magistrate Judge Brennan.

20

previously pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between

21

the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to

22

seal documents that outweighs the interests of public disclosure.

23

See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging

24

Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster

25

Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,

26

Civ. No. 1:14-00953.

27

judge signed the stipulated protective order does not change this

28

principle.”

This court has

“The fact that the assigned magistrate

Aug. 5, 2016 Order at 3, Paul Evert’s RV Country,
2

1

Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., Civ. No. 1:15-00124.

2

Plaintiff and defendants also seek to seal the

3

unredacted versions because they purportedly contain copyrighted

4

information that is not disclosed to the public.

5

secrets may justify filing documents under seal, see Kamakana,

6

447 F.3d at 1179, copyrighted information is not a trade secret.

7

Copyright applies to materials that are distributed to the public

8

in order to protect the author’s original work.

9

102.

While trade

See 17 U.S.C. §

Just because the parties do not disclose the materials

10

unless individuals pay for them does not mean there is a

11

compelling reason to seal that information.

12

provide any case where a court sealed copyrighted information

13

because it was “not disclosed to the public.”

14

they will suffer financial harm if this information is part of

15

the public record, but they fail to explain why this is a valid

16

basis to seal entire documents.

17

information may prevent the public from understanding the basis

18

upon which the court makes its decisions, and the parties fail to

19

explain how their harm outweighs public policies favoring

20

disclosure.

21

Nor do the parties

The parties allege

Further, sealing this

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

Given the public policies favoring disclosure and the

22

parties’ broad requests, the requests will be denied.

23

will consider more tailored requests to seal specific portions of

24

the materials, which state the basis for sealing these portions

25

and why their harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

26

The court

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ requests to

27

seal in connection with its motion for preliminary injunction and

28

plaintiff’s ex parte motion to strike (Docket Nos. 48, 53, 58)
3

1

be, and the same hereby are, DENIED without prejudice.

2

Dated:

July 6, 2017

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4