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)

Download PDF
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

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?