IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc.
ORDER on Defendants' 113 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. It is ordered that the motion to file under seal Exhibit 3 is granted; The motion to file under seal is granted temporarily as to Exhibits 6, 7 and 8; On or before 6/8/2017, th e party who designated Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 confidential shall file either (a) a memorandum not to exceed ten pages explaining why the documents should be filed under seal, with citation to legal authority, if any; or (b) a notice that the confiden tial designation is withdrawn and the document(s) can be filed publicly. Upon receipt of the response to this Order, the Court will determine whether to order that the documents be sealed permanently, or publicly filed. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/1/2017. (dxj) (sjt).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IPS GROUP, INC.,
Case No.: 15-cv-1526-CAB (MDD)
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
[Doc. No. 113]
DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC. and
DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES,
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Duncan Solutions, Inc. (“DSI”) and
Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal. [Doc. No. 113.] Defendants seek to file Exhibits 3, 6, 7, and 8,
filed as exhibits to Mr. Kalb’s declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to IPS
Group, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Statement of Balu Subramanya or Alternatively for Relief
Under Rule 56(b). Defendants argue: (1) the documents should be sealed because they
have been designated by either DSI or Plaintiff as confidential and (2) the documents
constitute a protectable trade secret because they contain sensitive business information.
However, it is not obvious from the contents of Exhibits 6, 7 and 81 that “compelling
reasons” justify sealing the documents notwithstanding the “strong presumption” in favor
of public access. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2006) (“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming
this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”).
In light of the foregoing, the Court is disinclined to allow Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 sealed-
lodged at Docket Number 114 to be filed under seal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
1. The motion to file under seal Exhibit 3 is GRANTED;
2. The motion to file under seal is GRANTED temporarily as to Exhibits 6, 7 and
3. On or before June 8, 2017, the party2 who designated Exhibits 6, 7 and 8
confidential shall file either (a) a memorandum not to exceed ten pages
explaining why the documents should be filed under seal, with citation to legal
authority, if any; or (b) a notice that the confidential designation is withdrawn
and the document(s) can be filed publicly;
4. Upon receipt of the response to this Order, the Court will determine whether to
order that the documents be sealed permanently, or publicly filed.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2017
Exhibits 7 and 8 relate to agreements with City Councils that the Court presumes are publicly
The Court suspects this was Plaintiff as the motion states these documents “contain sensitive technical
information that is regarded as proprietary to IPS and [are] marked as ‘Confidential – For Counsel
Only,” but the motion itself and accompanying declaration is silent as to who designated these
documents as confidential.
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?