Federal Trade Commission v. AAFE Products Corp. et al
ORDER Granting 22 Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/29/2017. (lrf) (sjt).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
AAFE PRODUCTS CORP. a California
corporation, JBE INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, a California limited liability
company, et al.,
(Doc. No. 22)
Presently before the Court is Defendants Joshua Bernheim and Brian Bernheim’s
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion to seal portions of the proposed
Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief as to AAFE Products
Corp., JBE International LLC, BSDC, Inc., KADC, Inc., Purestrike, Inc., BNRI Corp., fka
Bernheim & Rice, Inc., Brian Bernheim, Joshua Bernheim, and Jared Coates (“AAFE
Stipulated Order”). (Doc. No. 22.)
Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to
overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate
justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance the
competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135).
Here, Defendants seek to seal the AAFE Stipulated Order as it identifies by name
and residential addresses non-party individuals, who share an ownership interest in real
property used as collateral for the security of the monetary judgment. (Doc. No. 22 at 1.)
Additionally, the motion is unopposed and is redacted in a limited fashion as to only
prevent disclosure of the identity, status, and addresses of the non-party individuals. (Id. at
Consequently, finding the motion narrowly tailored and that the justifications for
sealing outweigh the public’s interest in the non-party’s personal information, the Court
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (acknowledging the
privacy interests implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information); see also
Opperman v. Path, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 17, 2017) (finding a motion to seal an exhibit that contained the names, email
addresses, and phone numbers of non-party users warranted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2017
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?