IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc.

Filing 116

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be filed under seal, with citation to legal authority, if any; or (b) a notice that the confiden tial designation is withdrawn and the document(s) can be filed publicly.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).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IPS GROUP, INC.,

Case No.: 15-cv-1526-CAB (MDD)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
[Doc. No. 113]

v.
DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC. and
DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Duncan Solutions, Inc. (“DSI”) and

19

Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File

20

Documents Under Seal. [Doc. No. 113.] Defendants seek to file Exhibits 3, 6, 7, and 8,

21

filed as exhibits to Mr. Kalb’s declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to IPS

22

Group, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Statement of Balu Subramanya or Alternatively for Relief

23

Under Rule 56(b). Defendants argue: (1) the documents should be sealed because they

24

have been designated by either DSI or Plaintiff as confidential and (2) the documents

25

constitute a protectable trade secret because they contain sensitive business information.

26
27
28
1
15-cv-1526-CAB (MDD)

1

However, it is not obvious from the contents of Exhibits 6, 7 and 81 that “compelling

2

reasons” justify sealing the documents notwithstanding the “strong presumption” in favor

3

of public access. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

4

Cir. 2006) (“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming

5

this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”).

6

In light of the foregoing, the Court is disinclined to allow Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 sealed-

7

lodged at Docket Number 114 to be filed under seal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

8

as followed:

9

1. The motion to file under seal Exhibit 3 is GRANTED;

10

2. The motion to file under seal is GRANTED temporarily as to Exhibits 6, 7 and

11

8;

12

3. On or before June 8, 2017, the party2 who designated Exhibits 6, 7 and 8

13

confidential shall file either (a) a memorandum not to exceed ten pages

14

explaining why the documents should be filed under seal, with citation to legal

15

authority, if any; or (b) a notice that the confidential designation is withdrawn

16

and the document(s) can be filed publicly;

17

4. Upon receipt of the response to this Order, the Court will determine whether to

18

order that the documents be sealed permanently, or publicly filed.

19
20

It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Exhibits 7 and 8 relate to agreements with City Councils that the Court presumes are publicly
available.
2
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.
2
15-cv-1526-CAB (MDD)