Crossfit, Inc. v. National Strength and Conditioning Association

Filing 231

ORDER Denying 229 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion and grants Plaintiff leave to amend its motion to file documents under seal. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/7/2018. (mpl)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 CROSSFIT, INC., a Delaware corporation, 14 15 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No.: 14-CV-1191 JLS (KSC) v. (ECF No. 229) NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION, a Colorado corporation, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 198). Plaintiff seeks to file under seal: 1. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to File a Sur-Reply to Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to Allow Designation of Expert Witnesses; 2. The Declaration of Justin S. Nahama in Support of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application; and 3. Exhibit A to the Ex Parte Application, which includes: (1) Plaintiff’s proposed Sur- 25 Reply, and (2) the Declaration of Justin S. Nahama with exhibits attached thereto; 26 Plaintiff does not seek to file under seal only portions of these lengthy documents, 27 but seek to seal the entirety of all of the documents. Plaintiff must present compelling 28 reasons to overcome the strong presumption of public access to documents. Ctr. for Auto 1 14-CV-1191 JLS (KSC) 1 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98 (9th Cir. 2016); Foltz v. State Farm 2 Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “[G]eneralized information is not 3 likely to meet the compelling reasons standard of sealing, and [a party] must avoid this 4 general information when applying its redactions to propriety information.” Obesity 5 Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int’l, LLC, No. 15-cv-595-BAS (MDD), 2017 WL 6 5001287, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2017) (collecting cases). The Court finds it is plausible 7 there may be information in one or more of the above documents that warrants sealing, but 8 Plaintiff has failed to present compelling reasons that the entirety of each of the documents 9 warrant sealing. Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion 10 and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend its motion to file documents under seal. See Obesity 11 Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int’l, No. 15-cv-595-BAS (MDD), 2017 WL 12 3269211, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017) (holding the same). Plaintiff’s revised Motion 13 must specify portions of the documents that present compelling reasons for sealing. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2018 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 14-CV-1191 JLS (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?