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)

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)