Natural Thoughts, Incorporated v. Performance Touch, LLC et al

Filing 95

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Motions to Seal [ECF Nos. 66 , 72 , 77 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 5/17/2019. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATURAL THOUGHTS, INC.,

Case No.: 17cv2148-BEN-LL
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14
16

PERFORMANCE TOUCH, LLC; THE
HYGENIC CORPORATION;
PERFORMANCE HEALTH HOLDINGS
CORPORATION; and DOES 2-10,

17

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Defendants.

15

[ECF Nos. 66, 72, 77]

18
19

Currently before the Court are the Parties’ Motions to Seal filed in conjunction with

20

the Parties’ briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See ECF Nos. 62, 72, 77. “Courts

21

have long recognized ‘a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

22

including judicial records and documents.’” Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, 2014 U.S. Dist.

23

LEXIS 142074, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications,

24

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). However, “[t]his right is not absolute.” Id.

25

Documents related to non-dispositive motions, like the one at issue here, may be

26

filed under seal if the party filing the documents shows “good cause by making a

27

‘particularized showing’ that ‘specific prejudice or harm will result’ should the information

28

be disclosed.” Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1
17cv2148-BEN-LL

1

16928, at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

2

447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006)).

3

Here, none of the Parties’ motions meet the relevant standard for filing documents

4

under seal. Plaintiff states only that the documents should be filed under seal because they

5

contain information Defendant has designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY

6

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” under the Protective Order. ECF Nos. 66

7

at 3; 77 at 3. This is insufficient. See Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital

8

Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175334, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) (“A blanket

9

protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not

10

provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should

11

remain sealed.”). Similarly, Defendant’s asserts in a conclusory fashion that the

12

information is “commercially sensitive.” ECF No. 72 at 3. This is also inadequate. See

13

Jones v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14698, at *2 (N.D.

14

Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (“‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of

15

articulated reasoning’ will not suffice.”) (quotations omitted).

16

Accordingly, the Parties’ motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within

17

fourteen days of this order, the Parties shall either: (1) file the sealed exhibits publicly; or

18

(2) file renewed motions to seal. Should either Party choose to file a renewed motion to

19

seal, it must make a particularized showing of the specific prejudice or harm that will result

20

from the information disclosed in each document.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: May 17, 2019

24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv2148-BEN-LL