Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation et al

Filing 128

ORDER denying 122 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/20/2019. (jms)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
California limited liability company,

10

Case No.: 18cv73-MMA (AGS)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT A TO THE STEVEN A.
CALOIARO DECLARATION

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a
New Jersey corporation,

13
14

[Doc. No. 122]

Defendant.

15
16

In connection with Defendant’s supplemental briefing regarding its evidentiary

17

objections, Defendant moves to file under seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven A.

18

Caloairo. See Doc. No. 122. Exhibit A consists of excerpts of the deposition transcript

19

of Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. See id. Pursuant to the terms of the Protective

20

Order entered in this case, Plaintiff designated the transcript as confidential. See id.

21

Thus, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff, as the designating party, must set forth

22

compelling reasons for maintaining the deposition transcript excerpts under seal. See id.

23

The Court agrees.

24

Generally, a party seeking to seal a judicial record can overcome the presumption

25

in favor of access by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

26

findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

27

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana

28

v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
-1-

18cv73-MMA (AGS)

1
2

marks omitted).
Defendant filed its motion on December 16, 2019. See Doc. No. 122. To date,

3

Plaintiff has not filed a response setting forth compelling reasons to seal this transcript.

4

Additionally, upon review of the transcript, the excerpts do not contain the type of

5

information that, if disclosed, would harm Plaintiff’s competitive standing. Accordingly,

6

because there has been no showing of compelling reasons to shield this information from

7

public view, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. As set forth in the Court’s previous

8

order ruling on the parties’ motions to file documents under seal, pursuant to the

9

District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, if a

10

“motion to seal is denied, the document will remain lodged under seal without further

11

consideration absent contrary direction from the Court.” If Defendant would like the

12

Court to consider Exhibit A in ruling on the pending dispositive motions, Defendant must

13

re-file the exhibit on the public docket on or before

14

Monday, December 23, 2019.

15
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2019
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

18cv73-MMA (AGS)