San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions et al
Filing
291
ORDER Granting Both Plaintiff and Defendants' Motions to Seal. [Doc. Nos. 278 , 284 ]. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/25/2017. (lrf)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a
California non-profit corporation,
15
16
17
18
ORDER GRANTING BOTH
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
v.
DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah
limited liability company; DANIEL
FARR, an individual; and BRYAN
BRANDENBURG, an individual,
(Doc. Nos. 278, 284 )
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presently before the Court are both Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg’s
(“Defendants”) motion to file documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 278, 284.) As explained
more fully below, the Court GRANTS both motions.
Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz
1
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to
2
overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate
3
justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See
4
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the
5
competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
6
secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).
7
“After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records,
8
it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its
9
ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,
10
49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially
11
related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good
12
cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
13
Defendants seek to seal their amended memorandum of points and authorities in
14
support of their ex parte motion for reconsideration as the motion contains confidentiality
15
designations pursuant to the protective order. (Doc. No. 278 at 2.) Plaintiff requests that
16
the Court seal its opposition to Defendants’ ex parte application as it discloses confidential
17
financial information of the parties and has also been designated confidential under the
18
protective order. (Doc. No. 284 at 1–2.)
19
After a careful review of the documents, the Court finds both parties’ motions to seal
20
warranted. First, the Court notes that case law makes clear that documents that were given
21
protective designations under a protective order are already determined to satisfy the “good
22
cause” standard as they are meant “to protect [the] information from being disclosed to the
23
public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips
24
v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, compelling
25
reasons exist to seal the documents as they contain private financial records of both parties,
26
as well as refer to the expert reports of Clarke B. Nelson and Patrick F. Kennedy,
27
documents already sealed by this Court. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d
28
1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (the court may ensure its
2
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)
1
records are not used as “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
2
competitive standing”).
3
Based on the foregoing, finding that the parties’ desire to keep the documents
4
confidential outweighs the public’s need for access to the ex parte application and
5
opposition, the Court GRANTS both parties’ motions to seal.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: October 25, 2017
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?