San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions et al

Filing 505

ORDER: (1) Granting Plaintiff's Request to Seal; and (2) Granting Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions (ECF Nos. 495 , 497 , 499 , 500 ). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 6/5/2018. (mxn)

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:

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SEAL; AND

v.
DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah
limited liability company; DANIEL
FARR, an individual; and BRYAN
BRANDENBURG, an individual,

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
PROPOSED REDACTIONS

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 495, 497, 499, 500)

19
20
21

On April 10, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice fourteen motions to seal filed

22

by both Plaintiff and Defendants in relation to their post-trial motions. (Doc. Nos. 422, 424,

23

430, 434, 437, 453, 456, 460, 463, 465, 472, 475, 478, 482.) The Court then instructed both

24

parties to either submit new declarations stating the compelling reasons in favor of sealing

25

the documents or propose narrowly tailored redactions. (Doc. No. 491 at 6.) In response,

26

Defendants did not file any additional declarations and Plaintiff filed four declarations.

27

(Doc. Nos. 495, 497, 499, 500.) As will be explained in greater detail below, the Court

28

GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to seal and its proposed redactions.
1
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

1

DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiff’s four declarations request the following: (1) that the Court direct

3

Defendants to file redacted versions of Exhibits three and four to Defendants’ estoppel

4

motion, (Doc. No. 495); (2) that the Court seal Exhibit E to the declaration of L. Rex Sears

5

in support of Defendants’ motion for new trial of validity and infringement, (Doc. No.

6

497); (3) that the Court direct Defendants to file a redacted version of Exhibit F to the

7

declaration of L. Rex Sears in support of Defendants’ motion for new trial of validity and

8

infringement, (Id.); (4) that the Court direct Defendants to file redacted versions of Exhibit

9

3 and 4 to Defendants’ unclean hands motion, (Doc. No. 499); and (5) that the Court allow

10

Plaintiff to file a redacted version of its memorandum of points and authorities in

11

opposition to Defendants’ motion for ruling on estoppel defense, (Doc. No. 500).

12

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the

13

common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

14

597 (1978). Thus, “[u]nless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a

15

strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

16

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In order

17

to overcome this strong presumption, a party must “articulate[] compelling reasons

18

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

19

public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Id. at 1178–79. Parties seeking to seal documents in

20

a dispositive motion must meet the high threshold requiring “compelling reasons” with

21

specific factual findings to support sealing. Id. at 1178–80. The “compelling reasons” test

22

requires showing more than just “good cause.” Id. at 1180.

23

As to Exhibit E to the declaration of L. Rex Sears in support of Defendants’ motion

24

for new trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s new declaration has presented compelling

25

reasons that justify sealing the entire exhibit—Doc. No. 344. (Doc. No. 497 at 2–3.) As

26

Plaintiff points out, the motion is replete with references to confidential settlement

27

discussions, negotiations between Plaintiff and a third party concerning a potential license

28

for Plaintiff’s trademarks, and direct quotations from emails referencing the same private
2
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

1

discussions. (Id. at 2.) It is without question that courts have sealed confidential settlement

2

agreements and negotiations. See Prosurance Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.,

3

No. 10-CV-02600-LHK, 2011 WL 704456, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) (sealing

4

documents that discussed or disclosed the terms of an agreement); see also Brightwell v.

5

McMillan Law Firm, No. 16-CV-1696 W (NLS), 2017 WL 5885667, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal.

6

Nov. 29, 2017) (sealing email correspondences that discussed the terms of an underlying

7

settlement). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exhibit E is GRANTED.

8
9

Next, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s various requests to redact certain documents. The
proposed redactions are as follows:

10

(1) redact all minutes except for one specific entry in Exhibit F to the Declaration of

11

L. Rex Sears in support of Defendants’ motion for new trial of validity and

12

infringement. (Doc. No. 497 at 4.) Exhibit F consists of excerpts from the deposition

13

of David Glanzer. (Id.)

14

(2) direct Defendants to file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 4 to Defendants’

15

motion for ruling on estoppel defense. (Doc. No. 495 at 2.) Exhibit 3 consists of

16

minutes from Plaintiff’s Board of Directors Meetings and Plaintiff points out that

17

Defendants only cite to Item #5 in their motion. (Id.) Exhibit 4 is an August 18, 2011

18

email exchange and Defendants cite only to one portion of the exhibit in their

19

motion. (Id. at 3.) The remainder of the email exchange includes confidential

20

discussions and immaterial issues to the present lawsuit. (Id. at 3–4.)

21

(3) direct Defendants to file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 4 to Defendants’

22

unclean hands motion. (Doc. No. 499 at 2.) These two exhibits are identical to the

23

foregoing exhibits and the redactions Plaintiff requests are the same.

24

(4) narrowly tailored redactions to Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and

25

authorities in opposition to Defendants’ motion for ruling on estoppel defense. (Doc.

26

No. 500 at 2.)

27

In general, the Court finds the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and that

28

Plaintiff has provided a particularized showing that specific harm will result if the
3
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

1

information is made publicly available. Moreover, Defendants do not oppose the

2

redactions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the proposed redactions detailed in

3

Plaintiff’s declarations.

4

CONCLUSION

5

As explained above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to seal Exhibit E to the

6

Declaration of L. Rex. Sears in support of Defendants’ motion for new trial of validity and

7

infringement. (Doc. No. 497 at 2.) The SEAL CLERK is ORDERED to file Exhibit E

8

under seal. (Doc. No. 435-1.)

9

Additionally, the Court DIRECTS Defendants to file redacted versions of (1)

10

Exhibit F to the Declaration of L. Rex Sears in support of Defendants’ motion for new trial

11

of validity and infringement, (Doc. Nos. 435-2), and (2) Exhibits 3 and 4 to Defendants’

12

estoppel and unclean hands motions, (Doc. Nos. 426-2, 426-3, 438-3, 438-4). Defendants

13

are to file the redactions as provided in Plaintiff’s declarations. Finally, Plaintiff is

14

DIRECTED to file the redacted version of its memorandum of points and authorities in

15

opposition to Defendants’ motion for ruling on estoppel defense. (Doc. No. 464.)

16
17

The Court ORDERS the parties to file within seven days documents that comply
with the Court’s determinations above.

18

As to the remainder of the motions to seal, as neither party has filed additional

19

declarations requesting that the documents be sealed, the Court’s April 10, 2018 Order

20

denying the motions to seal still stands. Thus, the SEAL CLERK is ORDERED to

21

publicly docket the following documents: Doc. Nos. 423, 423-1, 426, 426-1, 426-4 through

22

426-8, 431, 438, 438-1, 438-2, 438-5, 454, 454-1, 457, 461, 466, 473, 473-1, 476, 479,

23

483.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: June 5, 2018

26
27
28
4
14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)