San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions et al

Filing 604

ORDER (1) Granting 574 Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention's Motion to Redact Portions of the Transcript of the Hearing on Motions in Limine; (2) Granting 583 Defendants' Motion to Seal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's M otion to Redact Portions of the Transcript of the Hearing on Motions in Limine; and (3) Granting 588 Defendants' Motion to Seal Defendants' Reply Regarding Defendants' Motion to Seal Opposition. Further, the Court denies to strike fr om the record DFP's Exhibit A to its motion to seal its reply to its motion to seal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to redact is granted. (Doc. No. 574.) DFP's motions to seal are granted. (Doc. Nos. 583, 588.) The seal clerk is order ed to file Document Numbers 584 and 589 under seal. DFP is directed to file the redacted versions of its opposition to SDCC's motion to redact as well as its reply to its motion to seal as proposed by SDCC in the above-mentioned exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 587-1, 593-1.) Plaintiff is directed to provide the redacted portions of the transcript of the hearing on motions in limine to Judge Battaglia's court reporter. The Court orders the parties to file within seven days of this Order the documents that comply with the Court's determinations above. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/2/2019. (rmc)(cc: Transcripts clerks)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a
California non-profit corporation,

14
15

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

12
13

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

v.

(1)GRANTING PLAINTIFF SAN
DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION’S
MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS
OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
HEARING ON MOTIONS IN
LIMINE;

DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah
limited liability company, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS
OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
HEARING ON MOTIONS IN
LIMINE; AND

18
19
20
21
22

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL DEFENDANTS’
REPLY REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL
OPPOSITION

23
24
25
26
27

(Doc. No. 574, 583, 588)

28
1
14-cv-1865-AJB-JMA

1

Presently before the Court is San Diego Comic Convention’s (“SDCC”) motion to

2

redact portions of the transcript of the hearing on motions in limine. (Doc. No. 574.) SDCC

3

requests redaction of discussion and references to SDCC’s confidential communications

4

regarding infringement of SDCC’s trademarks, potential resolution of claims through

5

licensing and settlement, and efforts to police its trademarks and its rights. (Doc. No. 574-

6

1 at 2.) Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr and Bryan Brandenburg (collectively, “DFP”)

7

assert that SDCC has failed to justify these redactions. (See generally Doc. No. 584.)

8

However, the Court has previously found sufficient reasons to support redacting such

9

information from the public record. (See Doc. No. 505.) Accordingly, the Court finds the

10

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and that SDCC has provided a particularized

11

showing that specific harm will result if the information is made publicly available. See

12

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103

13

(9th Cir. 1999) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to redact portions of the transcript

14

of the hearing on motions in limine.

15

DFP filed motions to seal its opposition to SDCC’s motion to redact as well as its

16

reply to its motion to seal. (Doc. Nos. 583, 588.) However, DFP does not wish for the Court

17

to grant its motions, but rather filed the motions based on the assertions of SDCC that the

18

information is confidential. In light of the Court’s findings above, the Court GRANTS

19

DFP’s motions to seal. The redacted versions of these motions that Plaintiff has proposed

20

in Exhibit 1 to Document 587 and Exhibit 1 to Document 593 shall be filed in the public

21

record.

22
23

Further, the Court DENIES to strike from the record DFP’s Exhibit A to its motion
to seal its reply to its motion to seal.

24

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to redact is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 574.) DFP’s

25

motions to seal are GRANTED. (Doc. Nos. 583, 588.) The SEAL CLERK is ORDERED

26

to file Document Numbers 584 and 589 under seal. DFP is DIRECTED to file the redacted

27

versions of its opposition to SDCC’s motion to redact as well as its reply to its motion to

28

seal as proposed by SDCC in the above-mentioned exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 587-1, 593-1.)
2
14-cv-1865-AJB-JMA

1

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide the redacted portions of the transcript of the hearing on

2

motions in limine to Judge Battaglia’s court reporter.

3
4

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

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: July 2, 2019

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