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)

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