Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. DG IN PB, LLC et al

Filing 291

ORDER Denying 270 Motion to File Documents Under Seal and Ordering Movant to File Redacted Documents. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/15/20. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP

12

LITIGATION.

Case No.: 18-cv-840-GPC-BGS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
AND ORDERING MOVANT TO
FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS.

13
14
15

(ECF No. 270.)

16
17

On August 14, 2020, the Stores moved for leave to file four documents under seal

18

in support of their response to Tauler Smith’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No.

19

270. These invoices reflect the proceeds obtained by Tauler Smith, and disbursements

20

made therefrom, while litigating and settling claims advanced on behalf of the alleged

21

association-in-fact enterprise. ECF Nos. 271-1, 271-2, 271-3, 271-4. The Stores offer two

22

reasons for sealing the documents: (1) that they were produced as confidential in line

23

with an existing protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on June

24

19, 2020, ECF No. 235, and (2) that Outlaw is concerned filing them without seal would

25

trigger additional litigation from Tauler Smith. ECF No. 271 at 2–4.

26
27
28

The reasons put forward in the motion are insufficient to provide for sealing.
Courts apply a “strong presumption in favor of access” to documents filed in litigation.
1
18-cv-840-GPC-BGS

1

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). To

2

overcome that presumption, the movant must “articulate compelling reasons supported by

3

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

4

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

5

process.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006)

6

(quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).

7

Here, there is no indication of what “specific facts” would merit sealing these

8

documents as opposed to filing them publicly, and that showing is required even in the

9

face of a protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. In addition, the fact that filing a

10

document without seal may expose a party “to further litigation will not, without more,

11

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Tauler Smith, moreover, has not filed a response

12

to this motion nor addressed whether the documents should be sealed in its reply to the

13

motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 280.

14

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal. Nonetheless,

15

because the Court may reference these documents in its forthcoming Order on Tauler

16

Smith’s motion for summary judgment, the Court ORDERS that the Stores file redacted

17

versions of these documents by September 16, 2020. Specifically, the Court orders that

18

the names of any entities who are not Parties to this litigation be redacted. This will

19

protect the privacy of non-parties to this litigation who may have obtained or provided

20

payments noted in the invoice confidentially, and who may wish to not be associated with

21

this litigation but are not otherwise represented here. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v.

22

Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988-MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007)

23

(citing In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 190 (1st Cir. 2003)) (finding non-party’s

24

///

25
26
27
28

2
18-cv-840-GPC-BGS

1

privacy interest in personal financial information amounted to good cause). Any Party

2

may move to file unredacted versions at any time.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: September 15, 2020

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
18-cv-840-GPC-BGS