Shenzhen Fenda Technology Co. LTD v. Altec Lansing, LLC

Filing 94

ORDER: (1) Denying 87 Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal Without Prejudice; (2) Denying 88 , 90 , 92 Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/14/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

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

SHENZHEN FENDA TECHNOLOGY )
CO. LTD, a Corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
ALTEC LANSING, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, and
)
ALTEC LANSING, B.V., a limited
)
company,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-2188-GPC-BGS
ORDER:
(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL, (ECF NO. 87);
(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
SEAL, (ECF NO. 88, 90, 92);

19
20

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal

21

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal, the Court finds it is the

22

type of administrative motion that is routinely brought ex parte. See FDIC v.

23

Tarkanian, 2012 WL 1327856, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2012); Sullivan v. Deutsche

24

Bank Americas Holding Corp., 2010 WL 3448608, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010).

25

Plaintiff nonetheless filed its Motion as a regularly noticed motion even though the first

26

available hearing date for such a motion was April 4, 2014. It is unlikely Defendants

27

will oppose Plaintiff’s Motion because it is based on Defendants having designated

28

certain information included in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) as
3:12-cv-2188-GPC-BGS

1

“CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order entered in this case. For these reasons,

2

the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal as an administrative ex

3

parte motion that does not require a response from Defendants. See Curiel Civil

4

Chambers Rules re Ex Parte Motions (“The Court may rule upon ex parte motions

5

without requiring a response from the opposing party.”)

6

Plaintiff does not set forth any legal standard or argument that would justify

7

sealing portions of its TAC. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

8

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a party must demonstrate “compelling

9

reasons” to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion); see also In re

10

NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008)

11

(“[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling

12

reasons’ standard and not the ‘good cause’ standard.”)

13

Because Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of its TAC, the fact that certain

14

information was designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order does

15

not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard as to the specific pieces of

16

information that Plaintiff wants sealed.

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal, (ECF No. 87), is DENIED

18

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

19

2.

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183-84.

Defendants’ Motions to File Under Seal

20

Defendants Prophet Equity, LP; Pelham Smith; and Altec Lansing, LLC (all

21

three, “Defendants”) have each filed motions to seal their respective answers to

22

Plaintiff’s TAC. (ECF Nos. 88, 90, 92.) Defendants, like Plaintiff, have failed to

23

demonstrate compelling reasons to justify the sealing of their entire answers. See

24

United States v. Avalos, 2007 WL 2701213, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007) (applying

25

“compelling reasons” standard to request to seal answer). Accordingly, Defendants’

26

motions to file under seal, (ECF Nos. 88, 90, 92), are DENIED WITHOUT

27

PREJUDICE. Pursuant to Section 2(j) this District’s ECF Administrative Policies and

28

Procedures Manual, Defendants answers (currently lodged at ECF Nos. 89, 91, and 93)
2

3:12-cv-2188-GPC-BGS

1

“will remain lodged under seal without further consideration” unless and until

2

Defendants file a renewed motion to seal that sets forth the “compelling reasons” for

3

sealing the specific portions of their answers.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 14, 2014

6
7

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

3:12-cv-2188-GPC-BGS