San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions et al
Filing
233
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions to Seal (Doc. Nos. 89 , 93 , 164 , 170 , 184 , 188 , 192 , 209 , 217 , 219 , 224 , 227 ); and (2) Denying As Moot Documents 98 , 160 , and 196 . Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/30/2017. (lrf)
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
Case No.: 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a
California non-profit corporation,
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
v.
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL;
AND
(DOC. NOS. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188,
192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227)
DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah
limited liability company; DANIEL
FARR, an individual; and BRYAN
BRANDENBURG, an individual,
Defendants.
18
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
DOCUMENTS 98, 160, AND 196
19
20
21
Pending before the Court are both Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention
22
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg’s
23
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motions to file documents under seal. Pursuant
24
to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matters suitable for decision on the papers
25
and without oral argument. As explained more fully below, the Court GRANTS both
26
parties’ motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224,
27
227), and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ duplicative motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 98,
28
160, and 196).
1
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
BACKGROUND
2
The heart of this case revolves around Defendants’ use of the unhyphenated form of
3
Plaintiff’s trademark “Comic-Con.” (Doc. No. 97 at 10.)1 Since 1970, Plaintiff, a non-profit
4
organization, has held the Comic-Con Convention in San Diego, California celebrating
5
comic art, books, and other aspects of the popular arts. (Id. at 9.) In total, Plaintiff holds
6
four trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
7
(“USPTO”): (1) COMIC-CON; (2) COMIC CON INTERNATIONAL; (3) for the word-
8
plus-design mark that Plaintiff uses to advertise its products; and (4) for the word mark
9
ANAHEIM COMIC-CON.2 (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 13.) Defendants Bryan Brandenburg and Daniel
10
Farr are co-founders of Defendant Dan Farr Productions. (Doc. No. 102 at 12.) On
11
September 5, 2014, Defendants held the first Salt Lake Comic Con (“SLCC”). (Herrera
12
Decl. Ex. 5 (“Farr Depo”) 11:4–9, Doc. No. 95-7.) In sum, Plaintiff contends that
13
Defendants have used “Comic Con” to advertise their event, which is identical to or
14
confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s family of trademarks. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 18.)
15
On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants asserting causes
16
of action for (1) federal trademark infringement; and (2) false designation of origin. (Doc.
17
No. 1.) On September 22, 2014, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint with a
18
counterclaim against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 16.) On June 23, 2017, the last day for dispositive
19
motions to be filed, both parties filed the present matters, their motions to file documents
20
under seal. (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227.)
21
LEGAL STANDARD
22
Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public
23
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
24
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one
25
26
1
27
28
All pinpoint cites are in reference to the CM/ECF page number and not the number on
the document.
2
The marks are registered with the USPTO as U.S. Service Mark Registration Numbers
3,221,808; 3,219,568; 2,218,236; and 4,425,806. (Doc. No. 97 at 10.)
2
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
2
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz
3
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to
4
overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate
5
justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See
6
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the
7
competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
8
secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).
9
“After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records,
10
it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its
11
ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,
12
49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially
13
related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good
14
cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
15
DISCUSSION
16
Plaintiff and Defendants have filed a tsunami of motions to seal that relate to their
17
motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude still pending before the Court. The
18
Court notes that the majority of the documents both parties seek to seal are based on the
19
protective order filed on January 20, 2016. (Doc. No. 46.)
20
Plaintiff’s request that the Court file under seal (1) its memorandum of points and
21
authorities in support of their motion to exclude and exhibits three and four to the
22
declaration of Michelle A. Herrera stating that they contain confidential financial
23
information, (Doc. No. 89); (2) exhibits two through nine attached to the declaration of
24
David Glanzer in support of its motion for summary judgment as it expresses in detail
25
Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce its trademark over the past several years, and contains
26
confidential litigation and settlement strategies, (Doc. No. 93); (3) its opposition to
27
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on abandonment and estoppel, and
28
exhibits 1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20 attached to the declaration of Callie
3
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
Bjurstrom as the documents consist of confidential agreements and correspondence
2
regarding infringement claims and potential settlement discussions, (Doc. No. 170); (4) its
3
reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to exclude as it discloses confidential
4
financial information, (Doc. No. 184); and (5) its reply to Defendants’ opposition to its
5
motion for summary judgment and exhibit one to the declaration of Michelle Herrera, as
6
Defendants designated the transcript as confidential under the protective order, (Doc. No.
7
188).
8
Defendants request the Court seal (1) their motion for summary judgment based on
9
genericness, abandonment, and estoppel, as well as exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 to the
10
declaration of Jessica D. Garcia and exhibits 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 to the Declaration of Daniel
11
R. Barber in support of their motion for summary judgment, (Doc. Nos. 217, 219); (2) their
12
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as exhibits 2, 3, 4, 9, 10,
13
11, 12, 13, and 15 to the declaration of Rachel Jacques as Plaintiff’s contend they contain
14
sensitive and non-public information, (Doc. No. 224); (3) their opposition to Plaintiff’s
15
motion to exclude, and exhibits B, D, and E to Daniel Barber’s declaration in support of
16
their opposition, and the testimony of Jeffrey P. Kaplan, and Clarke B. Nelson, as these
17
documents were given protective designations by Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 164); (4) their
18
“corrected” declaration of Jessica D. Garcia in support of their motions for summary
19
judgment, (Doc. No. 192); and (5) their reply in support of their motions for summary
20
judgment, exhibits 2, 3, 4 to the declaration of Daniel R Barber, and the declaration of
21
Daniel Farr, (Doc. No. 227).
22
In sum, the Court finds the sealing of the documents at issue appropriate in the
23
instant matter. First, the Court notes that it is cognizant that the compelling reasons
24
standard is a strict one. However, case law makes clear that motions to seal documents that
25
will cause “competitive harm” to a business are generally weighed in favor of sealing. See
26
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also In re Elec.
27
Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the Ninth Circuit abused its
28
discretion when it refused to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum
4
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
payment terms” found in a license agreement); Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (holding that
2
“sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” may
3
give rise to a compelling reason to seal). Additionally, the Court highlights that in regards
4
to the documents that were given protective designations by both Plaintiff and Defendants,
5
it has already been determined that “good cause exists to protect [the] information from
6
being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
7
confidentiality.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)
8
(internal quotation marks omitted).
9
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that balancing the public’s right of access to
10
the listed documents does not outweigh the compelling and good reasons to seal.
11
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants’ motions to seal are GRANTED.
12
Additionally, on August 8, 2017, the Court requested that Defendants file a
13
supplemental appendix to aid the Court in locating the documents proffered by them. (Doc.
14
No. 206.) Thereafter, Defendants filed their supplemental appendix under seal as some of
15
the information cited to is designated confidential under the protective order. (Doc. No.
16
209.) Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
17
motion to seal their supplemental appendix.
18
On a final note, it is notable to clarify that the Court requested Defendants re-lodge
19
all of their motions and exhibits as their citations did not correspond to the correct exhibit
20
numbers on the docket.3 Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 2017, Defendants filed a notice
21
of withdrawal. (Doc. No. 232.) Unfortunately, Defendants’ notice is faulty as it fails to
22
withdraw all of the motions to seal that were replaced by the new lodgments. Thus, the
23
24
25
26
27
3
28
The Court notes that Defendants attached over three thousand documents to their various
motions. Thus, the need for correct citations was vital to aiding the Court in analyzing their
arguments and supporting evidence.
5
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
Court is left with duplicative motions on the docket.4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES as
2
MOOT said motions to seal. (Doc. Nos. 98, 160, 196.)
3
CONCLUSION
4
As explained more fully above, the Court GRANTS Defendants and Plaintiff’s
5
motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 89, 93, 164, 170, 184, 188, 192, 209, 217, 219, 224, 227), and
6
DENIES as MOOT Defendants’ duplicative motions to seal, (Doc. Nos. 98, 160, 196).
7
Dated: August 30, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
27
28
The Court notes that it is not the Court’s function or responsibility to properly lodge
documents or manage the docket for Defendants. In the future, Defendants should take care
to inspect their filings to ensure their accuracy before filing them with the Court.
6
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
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?