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

Filing 130

ORDER granting 124 Defendant'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 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC., Defendant. 15 [ECF No. 124] 16 17 18 19 Defendant Pacific Surf Design, Inc. (“PSD”) has moved to file under seal Exhibits 20 Q, R, and S to the Supplemental Declaration of Justin M. Barnes in support of 21 Defendant’s Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter 22 Jurisdiction. (Docket No. 124.) 23 The exhibits are license agreements and a spreadsheet listing royalty revenues. 24 PSD explains that either Plaintiffs or third party Aquatic Development Group, Inc. 25 (“ADG”) have designated these exhibits “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR COUNSEL ONLY” 26 under the Protective Order because they contain “information regarding the royalties and 27 other financial terms for the sale of products, as well as confidential information 28 regarding the specifications for the products.” (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). And, clearly, product 12 specifications qualify as trade secrets. 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, PSD’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the documents lodged at Docket No. 125 under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 19, 2016 17 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?