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).

Download PDF
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

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?