Flowrider Surf, Ltd. et al v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc.

Filing 128

ORDER granting 118 Plaintiff's Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/19/2016. (kcm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FLOWRIDER SURF, LTD., et al.,

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS
UNDER SEAL

PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC.,
Defendant.

15

[ECF No. 118]

16
17
18

Plaintiffs FlowRider Surf, Ltd. and Surf Waves Ltd. have moved to file under seal

19

Exhibits 1-3 and 5-11 to the Declaration of Geoff Chutter and Exhibit A to the

20

Declaration of Thomas Lochtefeld in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s

21

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Docket No. 118.)

22

The exhibits are license and sublicense agreements and amendments thereto, a

23

contribution agreement, and a deed of assignment. Plaintiffs explain that these

24

documents have been designated “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR COUNSEL ONLY” under the

25

Protective Order because they “contain[] sensitive information regarding royalties and

26

other financial terms for the sale of Flowriders,” “trade secret information regarding the

27

products’ specifications,” and “sensitive information regarding the cost of [an]

28

assignment.” (See id.)
1
3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

1

“[C]ompelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and

2

justify sealing court records exist when such court files might . . . become a vehicle for

3

improper purposes, such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana v.

4

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). A “trade secret may

5

consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in

6

one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

7

competitors who do not know or use it.” Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b. Royalty

8

rates fall within the definition of trade secrets, In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569

9

(9th Cir. 2008), “because disclosure could create an asymmetry of information in the

10

negotiation of future licensing deals,” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-

11

01846-LHK, 2012 WL 4933287, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012). The cost of an

12

assignment is similarly sensitive financial information that may also be sealed. And,

13

clearly, product specifications qualify as trade secrets.

14
15
16
17

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file
the documents lodged at Docket No. 119 under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM