Federal Trade Commission v. AAFE Products Corp. et al

Filing 24

ORDER Granting 22 Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/29/2017. (lrf) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

v.
AAFE PRODUCTS CORP. a California
corporation, JBE INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, a California limited liability
company, et al.,

15
16
17

(Doc. No. 22)

Defendants.

18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendants Joshua Bernheim and Brian Bernheim’s

20

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion to seal portions of the proposed

21

Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief as to AAFE Products

22

Corp., JBE International LLC, BSDC, Inc., KADC, Inc., Purestrike, Inc., BNRI Corp., fka

23

Bernheim & Rice, Inc., Brian Bernheim, Joshua Bernheim, and Jared Coates (“AAFE

24

Stipulated Order”). (Doc. No. 22.)

25

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

26

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

27

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one

28

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
1
17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA

1

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz

2

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to

3

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate

4

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See

5

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the

6

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records

7

secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135).

8

Here, Defendants seek to seal the AAFE Stipulated Order as it identifies by name

9

and residential addresses non-party individuals, who share an ownership interest in real

10

property used as collateral for the security of the monetary judgment. (Doc. No. 22 at 1.)

11

Additionally, the motion is unopposed and is redacted in a limited fashion as to only

12

prevent disclosure of the identity, status, and addresses of the non-party individuals. (Id. at

13

1, 3.)

14

Consequently, finding the motion narrowly tailored and that the justifications for

15

sealing outweigh the public’s interest in the non-party’s personal information, the Court

16

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (acknowledging the

17

privacy interests implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information); see also

18

Opperman v. Path, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

19

Mar. 17, 2017) (finding a motion to seal an exhibit that contained the names, email

20

addresses, and phone numbers of non-party users warranted).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: August 29, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA