Scorpio Music S.A. et al v. Willis

Filing 62

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Deposition Transcript Excerpts should not be Filed on the Public Docket. The Court orders Defendant Victor Willis to show cause why the transcript excerpts should not be filed on the public docket. If Mr. Willis believes that there are compelling reasons for filing the transcript excerpts under seal, he must specify the reasons in a response to this order to show cause. Such response is due on or before April 17, 2013. Failure to file a response will result in the public filing of the exhibits. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/12/2013.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SCORPIO MUSIC (BLACK SCORPIO)
S.A. and CAN’T STOP PRODUCTIONS,
INC.,

13

Case No. 11cv1557 BTM(RBB)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
EXCERPTS SHOULD NOT BE
FILED ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15

VICTOR WILLIS,
Defendant.

16
17

VICTOR WILLIS,
Counterclaimant,

18
v.

19
20
21

SCORPIO MUSIC (BLACK SCORPIO)
S.A. and CAN’T STOP PRODUCTIONS,
INC.,
Counterclaim-Defendants,

22
23
24
25

-andHENRI BELOLO,
Additional Counterclaim-Defendant.

26
27
28
1

11CV1557 BTM(RBB)

1

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to file under seal portions of a transcript of a deposition

2

of Victor Willis taken in another action. Plaintiffs filed the motion because the transcript was

3

designated “Confidential,” and Plaintiffs want to make sure that they do not violate Mr.

4

Willis’s rights.

5

The courts in this country recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public

6

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

7

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Unless a court record falls within the limited

8

category of records “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access is the

9

starting point.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

10

2006). The strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to discovery

11

documents attached to dispositive motions. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

12

187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999).

13

The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong

14

presumption by articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. Foltz

15

v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). As explained by

16

the Ninth Circuit:

17
18
19

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such “court files might
have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as the use of records to
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or
release trade secrets. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306; accord Valley
Broadcasting Co., 798 F.2d at 1294.

20
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172. “[T]he common-law right of inspection has bowed before the
21
power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business
22
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
23
However, “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's
24
embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel
25
the court to seal its records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172.
26
Upon review of the deposition transcript excerpts, it is not apparent to the Court why
27
they must be filed under seal. Therefore the Court, orders Defendant Victor Willis to show
28
cause why the transcript excerpts should not be filed on the public docket. If Mr. Willis
2

11CV1557 BTM(RBB)

1

believes that there are compelling reasons for filing the transcript excerpts under seal, he

2

must specify the reasons in a response to this order to show cause. Such response is due

3

on or before April 17, 2013. Failure to file a response will result in the public filing of the

4

exhibits.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: April 12, 2013

7
8

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

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

11CV1557 BTM(RBB)