Zest IP Holdings, LLC et al v. Implant Direct MFG. LLC et al

Filing 332

ORDER (1) Granting Motions to File Documents Under Seal ( 122 , 257 , 281 , 292 , 302 , 307 , 313 ); (2) Denying 326 Motion to File Documents Under Seal Without Prejudice. Defendants Granted seven (7) days to refile a renewed motion to seal the dockets lodged at Dkt. Nos. 327 and 327-1 through 327-25. The parties are directed to file public, redacted versions of all sealed documents by 2/21/2014. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/14/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ZEST IP HOLDINGS, LLC and ZEST
ANCHORS, LLC,

11
12

CASE NO. 10cv0541 GPC-WVG
ORDER:
1. GRANTING MOTIONS TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER
SEAL

Plaintiffs,
vs.

13

[DKT. NOS. 122, 257, 281, 292,
302, 307, 313]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IMPLANT DIRECT MFG, LLC,
IMPLANT DIRECT LLC, and
IMPLANT DIRECT INT’L,

2. DENYING MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
[DKT. NO. 326]

Defendants.

Before the Court are numerous motions to seal, filed by both parties. (Dkt. Nos.
122, 257, 281, 292, 302, 307, 313.) The parties move to seal both their own
confidential information as well as information that was produced by other parties
under the designations “Confidential” and “Confidential - For Counsel Only” pursuant
to the parties’ stipulated protective order, (Dkt. No. 30).
LEGAL STANDARD
Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City
and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records
relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with
-1-

10cv0541 GPC(WVG)

1

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public

2

policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

3

Records attached to non-dispositive motions, however, are not subject to the

4

strong presumption of access. Because the documents attached to non-dispositive

5

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of

6

action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule

7

26(c). Id. at 1179. A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show good cause

8

for sealing particular documents. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331

9

F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] party seeking the protection of the court via a

10

blanket protective order typically does not make a ‘good cause’ showing required by

11

Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular document.”); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

12

1183; Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d at 475-76.
DISCUSSION

13
14

The Court has considered each of the documents the parties have designated

15

for sealing and, as articulated in the table below, determined which documents may

16

remain under seal or redacted and which documents must be unsealed.

17

Dkt.

Request

Result

18

No.
122

Exhibits to Declaration

Plaintiffs’ request on behalf of Defendants to

20

of Manuel J. Velez in

seal Exhibits 3-6, 8-10, 21, and 23, containing

21

support of Plaintiffs’

records of Implant Direct internal

22

Motion for Spoliation

communications and excerpted deposition

23

and Discovery Abuses

testimony, is GRANTED as potentially

24

Sanctions

prejudicial business information consistent

25

//

with the protective order entered by the Court

26

//

on April 28, 2011.

27

//

//

28

//

//

19

-2-

10cv0541 GPC(WVG)

1

257

Exhibit to Declaration of

Defendants’ request on behalf of Plaintiffs to

2

Christopher J. Drugger in seal Exhibit 1, containing one page of the

3

support of Defendants’

expert report of John B. Brunski, is

4

Opposition to Plaintiffs’

GRANTED as proprietary information

5

Motion to Strike

consistent with the protective order entered by

6

Invalidity Contentions
Memorandum of Points

the Court on April 28, 2011.
Defendants’ request to seal Defendants’

8

and Authorities in

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and

9

Support of Defendants’

Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, containing expert

10

Motion to Clarify or

report excerpts, deposition excerpts, and

11

Amend the Answer and

Plaintiffs’ interrogatory response excerpts, is

12

Exhibits to the

GRANTED as proprietary information

13

Declaration of

consistent with the protective order entered by

14

Christopher Drugger
Exhibits to the

the Court on April 28, 2011.
Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibits 5 and 6,

16

Declaration of Manuel J.

containing Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants

17

Velez in support of

interrogatories, is GRANTED as previously

18

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

sealed and containing potentially prejudicial

19

Defendants’ Motion to

business or confidential proprietary

20

Clarify or Amend

information consistent with the protective

21

Answer
Reply Memorandum of

order entered by the Court on April 28, 2011.
Defendants’ request to seal Defendants’

23

Points and Authorities in

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and

24

Support of Defendants’

Exhibits 2-4, containing representative copies

25

Motion to Clarify or

of Plaintiffs’ distribution agreements, is

26

Amend the Answer, and

GRANTED as proprietary information

27

Exhibits to the Decl. of

consistent with the protective order entered by

28

Christopher Drugger

the Court on April 28, 2011.

7

15

22

281

292

302

-3-

10cv0541 GPC(WVG)

1

307

Memorandum of Points

Defendants’ request to seal Defendants’

2

and Authorities in

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and

3

support of Defendants’

Exhibits 13-14, containing representative

4

Motion for

copies of Plaintiffs’ distribution agreements, is

5

Reconsideration, the

GRANTED as proprietary information

6

Declaration of Dr.

consistent with the protective order entered by

7

Niznick, and Exhibits to

the Court on April 28, 2011.

8

the Declaration of

9

Christopher Drugger

Defendants further lodged the Declaration of

10

Dr. Niznick and included Exhibit under seal as

11

Exhibit 15 to the Declaration of Christopher

12

Drugger. To the extent that Dr. Niznick’s

13

Declaration was not included in Defendants’

14

Motion to Seal, (Dkt. No. 307), the Court

15

Memorandum of Points

declines to seal the Declaration and exhibit.
Plaintiffs’ request to seal Plaintiffs’

17

and Authorities in

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and

18

support of Plaintiffs’

the declaration of Steve Schiess, Zest’s

19

Opposition to

President and CEO, is GRANTED as

20

Defendants’ Motion for

containing potentially prejudicial business or

21

Reconsideration and

confidential proprietary information consistent

22

Declaration of Steve

with the protective order entered by the Court

23

Schiess
Defendants’ Objections

on April 28, 2011.
Defendants’ request is DENIED WITHOUT

25

to Magistrate Judge

PREJUDICE to refilling a narrowly-tailored

26

Recommendation for

request. Defendants seek to seal thirty one

27

Adverse Jury Instruction

pages of objections, two declarations, and

28

and related Exhibits to

twenty two exhibits with no explanation as to

16

24

313

326

-4-

10cv0541 GPC(WVG)

1

the Declaration of

why good cause exists to seal any of the

2

Christopher Drugger

documents.

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

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Motions to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. Nos. 122, 257, 281, 292,
302, 313) are GRANTED. The documents now lodged at Dkt. Nos. 123, 258,
283, 290, 303, 314, and related attachments shall be FILED UNDER
SEAL.
2. The incomplete Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 307) is
GRANTED. The documents now lodged at Dkt. Nos. 308, 308-1, and 308-2
shall be FILED UNDER SEAL. Defendants are GRANTED seven (7) days
from the date this Order is electronically docketed to file a motion to seal the
documents now lodged at Dkt. No. 308-3 and 308-4. The documents may
remain lodged, pending Defendants’ renewed motion to seal.
3. Defendants’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 326) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants are GRANTED seven (7)
days from the date this Order is electronically docketed to re-file a motion to
seal the documents lodged at Dkt. Nos. 327 and 327-1 through 327-25. If
Defendants fail to file an amended motion to seal within the time prescribed,
the documents shall be stricken from the docket. The documents now lodged
at Dkt. Nos. 327 and 327-1 through 327-25 may remain lodged, pending
Defendants’ renewed motion to seal.
4. The parties are directed to file public, redacted versions of all sealed
documents by Friday, February 21, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 14, 2014

27
28

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
-5-

10cv0541 GPC(WVG)