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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?