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

Filing 97

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 96 Defendants' Renewed Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 6/12/19. (dlg)

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 GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

Defendants.

15

[ECF No. 96]

18
19

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ “Renewed Motion to File Certain

20

Documents and/or Portions of Documents Under Seal.” See ECF No. 96. Good cause

21

appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Renewed Motion to file the following

22

documents under seal:

23

1.

Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 12 in support.

24
25

The unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 65] and

2.

The unredacted version of Defendant’s Opposition [ECF No. 71] and the

26

unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B in support. The Court further

27

GRANTS Defendants’ request to substitute the redacted versions of Exhibits

28

A and D [ECF No. 96-2 and 96-3] for the currently filed Exhibits A and D
1
17cv2148-BEN-LL

1

[ECF No. 71-2 and 71-5].

2

3.

3

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request to file Exhibit 13 of Plaintiff’s Reply under

4

seal. Specifically, Defendants requests Exhibit 13 be filed under seal because it is an

5

“internal email communication between Defendants’ employees, sent during the time of

6

their employment[.]” ECF No. 96 at 8. Upon the Court’s review however, Exhibit 13

7

contains Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for

8

Production of Documents and has already been publicly filed.

The unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Reply [ECF No. 76].

9

It appears this portion of Defendants’ Renewed Motion is mistakenly referencing

10

Exhibits 9-13 of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order. See ECF

11

Nos. 79, 80. Instead, the Court notes the Parties’ previous Motion to Seal [ECF No. 77]

12

requested that Exhibit 15 (rather than Exhibit 13) be filed under seal because it contained

13

“a link to documents that Defendants have designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and

14

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” ECF No. 77 at 3. Per

15

Defendants’ representations however, such links have been (or at least can be) “disabled”

16

so that this exhibit can “be publicly filed without harming or prejudicing Defendants.” See

17

ECF No. 96 at 8.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: June 12, 2019

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv2148-BEN-LL