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)

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