Brady et al v. Grendene USA, Inc.

Filing 102

ORDER Denying without prejudice 90 97 Motions to File Documents Under Seal. On or before August 15, 2014, the parties may file a motion to seal portions of the exhibits. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/8/14. (rlu)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 JAMES W. BRADY and PATRICIA M. BRADY, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) GRENDENE USA, INC., a Delaware ) Corporation, and GRENDENE S.A., a ) Brazil Corporation, ) ) Defendants, ) ) ) AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. ) ) Case No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC-KSC ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (ECF NOS. 90, 97) 19 20 On July 25, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to file under seal certain documents 21 that Plaintiffs want to submit in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that 22 Defendants filed on May 30, 2014. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiffs wish to seal: 23 • “Exhibits 7-12 and 14-15 to the Declaration of James W. Brady (Brady 24 Declaration) and Exhibits 7, 10-12 to the Declaration of Lauren Keller 25 Katzenellenbogan (“Katzenellenbogan Declaration”) in support of 26 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment”; 27 28 • “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” which contains information from the foregoing exhibits; and 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC 1 • “Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed 2 Material Facts in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,” which 3 also includes information from the foregoing exhibits. 4 Plaintiffs assert Exhibits 7-12 and 14-15 to the Brady Declaration include 5 documents that Plaintiffs have designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential - 6 Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” These documents include correspondence regarding potential 7 licensing or purchase of Plaintiffs’ trademark, trade-show invoices, and a business 8 proposal from a third party. 9 Plaintiffs assert Exhibits 7 and 10-12 to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration 10 include documents that Defendants have designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential 11 - Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 12 Plaintiffs assert “[g]ood cause exists for filing these documents under seal 13 because of the highly sensitive nature of the information in the Exhibits to the Brady 14 Declaration, and because the protective order requires the Plaintiffs to seek leave to file 15 the Exhibits to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration under seal.” 16 The Court concludes Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that 17 “compelling reasons” exist to seal the above materials. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 18 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “compelling 19 reasons,” supported by specific factual findings, are required to seal material attached 20 to a dispositive motion). 21 First, with regard to the exhibits to the Brady Declaration, Plaintiffs’ request is 22 too broad. Having reviewed the sealed lodged materials, (ECF No. 98-2), the Court 23 finds the materials contain large swaths of information that do not appear to be as 24 “highly sensitive” as Plaintiffs assert. 25 Second, with regard to the exhibits to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration, (ECF 26 No. 98-3), the Court notes the Protective Order in this case states that “Protected 27 Material” may only be filed in accordance with applicable law. (See ECF No. 38 ¶ 28 13(c).) Because the documents Plaintiffs want sealed are in support of a dispositive 2 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC 1 motion, the fact that the documents were marked “Confidential” or “Confidential - 2 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” does not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard as 3 to the specific pieces of information that Plaintiffs want sealed. See Kamakana, 447 4 F.3d at 1183-84. The Court will therefore deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion 5 to File Documents Under Seal. 6 Defendants have also filed a motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 90.) 7 Defendants seek leave to file under seal Exhibits A, B, F, G, H, N, P, and U to the 8 Quinto Declaration—all in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment that 9 Defendants filed on July 25, 2014, (ECF No. 92). Defendants assert they are seeking 10 leave to file these materials under seal for the sole reason that Plaintiffs designated 11 them as “Confidential” or “Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the 12 Protective Order. Defendants assert that none of these materials should be filed under 13 seal. 14 Having reviewed the above exhibits, (ECF No. 91-2), the Court agrees with 15 Defendants that there appear to be no “compelling reasons” to file these materials 16 under seal. The Court will therefore deny without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to 17 File Documents Under Seal. 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 20 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 97), is 2. If Plaintiffs wish to renew their request to seal portions of the exhibits to 22 the Brady Declaration, they may do so on or before August 15, 2014. If 23 Plaintiffs do not renew their request to seal portions of the exhibits to the 24 Brady Declaration, the materials now lodged at ECF No. 98-2 “will 25 remain lodged under seal without further consideration.” ECF 26 Admin. Policies & Proc. Manual § 2(j). 27 28 3. If Defendants wish to file a motion to seal portions of the exhibits to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration 3 that Defendants have marked 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC 1 “Confidential” or “Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” Defendants may 2 do so on or before August 15, 2014. If Defendants do not file such a 3 motion within the time permitted, the materials will be publicly filed 4 without further order of the Court. 5 4. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6 7 Defendants’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 90), is 5. If Plaintiffs wish to file a motion to seal portions of the exhibits to the 8 Quinto Declaration (filed in support of Defendants’ July 25, 2014 Motion 9 for Summary Judgment) that Plaintiffs have marked “Confidential” or 10 “Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” Plaintiffs may do so on or before 11 August 15, 2014. If Plaintiffs do not file such a motion within the time 12 permitted, the materials will be publicly filed without further order of 13 the Court. 14 6. Any renewed motion to file documents under seal must demonstrate that 15 “compelling reasons” exist to seal each specific piece of information that 16 the moving party wants filed under seal. 17 18 19 20 21 7. To the extent possible, the parties are directed to publicly file redacted versions of any documents containing sealed materials. DATED: August 8, 2014 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC

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?