KHN Solutions Inc. v. Rofeer-US

Filing 127

ORDER DENYING 111 SEALING. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

KHN SOLUTIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. C 20-07414 WHA

v.
SHENZHEN CITY XUEWU FEIPING
TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company;
SHENZHEN YUANYUHAOHAN
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., a Chinese
Company; SHENZHEN AIMASI
ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., a Chinese
Company; ROFEER-US, a Chinese
Company; ZONGHUI LI, an Individual;
GUANGZHOU CITY JIAN SHENG
TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company;
JINMEI GONG, an Individual; CHENGDU
CITY XIANG JIN XIN COMMERCIAL &
TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company;
LIANDI CHEN, an Individual;
SHENZHEN CITY MENG QIAN HUA
KAI TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese
Company; MENGQIAN JIANG, an
Individual; HARBANS SINGH PALDA, an
Individual; RICHARD GAWEL, an
Individual; DONGQING CHEN, an
Individual; DEBIAO PANG, an Individual;
and DOES 1–50,

ORDER DENYING SEALING

Defendants.

22
23

This order resolves the pending sealing motion (Dkt. No. 111).

24

The motion seeks to seal an exhibit attached to the status update that supplemented and

25

renewed plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (see id. (re Dkt. No. 112)).

26

Specifically, the exhibit at issue is a table containing information about the seller accounts on

27

amazon.com that correspond to defendants and to sales of products related to this case (see

28

Dkt. No. 111-3 at 3 (sealed)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

This filing is presumptively public, and requires compelling reasons to seal. Kamakana

2

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). That standard applies

3

because the public especially enjoys the right to know to whom and from whom the courts

4

provide relief. See ibid. And, it applies because this information is related to whether

5

defendants are liable, failed to appear for excusable neglect, and other issues more than

6

tangentially related to the merits of the pending motion that seeks to dispose of this action (see

7

Dkt. No. 111-1 (“Ertas Decl.”) ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 108 at 2–3; Dkt. No. 125). Cf. Ctr. for Auto

8

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 580 U.S. 815

9

(2016).

10

There are no compelling reasons to seal these records. We are told that Amazon, Inc.

11

“designated portions of the spreadsheet confidential in accordance with the Court’s protective

12

order” (Ertas Decl. ¶ 4). But “confidential categorization of discovery documents under the

13

protective order was not a guarantee of confidentiality, especially in the event of a court

14

filing.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). The

15

instant protective order said as much (Dkt. No. 38 § 12.3). Moreover, our federal rules already

16

acknowledge that the last four digits (or tails) of bank account numbers can be filed without

17

redaction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(4). The other stuff here, mainly corporate contact

18

information, is even more innocuous. And, in this case, the public interests in putting sunlight

19

on alleged false advertising makes especially plain the wisdom of presumptive public access to

20

public court records. Cf. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.

21

2000) (Judge Frank Easterbrook)

22

Plaintiff shall re-file the exhibit onto the public docket in conformance with this order by

23

NOON ON MARCH 20, 2025.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: March 11, 2025.

26
27
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2