Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. v. Gunwerks, LLC

Filing 68

ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Document's Under Seal [Doc. No. 65 ]; (2) Directing the Clerk to File the Proposed Documents Under Seal [Doc. No. 66 ]; and (3) Ordering Plaintiff to Publically File a Revised Redacted Version of Its Opposition. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 9/8/2020. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TORREY PINES LOGIC, INC.,

12

Case No.: 19-cv-02195-H-DEB

Plaintiff, Counterdefendant,

13
14

ORDER:

v.
GUNWERKS, LLC,

15

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL;

Defendant, Counterclaimant.

16
[Doc. No. 65.]

17
18

(2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO
FILE THE PROPOSED
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND

19
20

[Doc. No. 66.]

21
22

(3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO
PUBLICLY FILE A REVISED
REDACTED VERSION OF ITS
OPPOSITION

23
24
25
26
27
28

On August 19, 2020, Defendant and Counterclaimant Gunwerks, LLC
(“Gunwerks”) filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer and counterclaims.
(Doc. No. 62.) On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Torrey Pines Logic,

1
19-cv-02195-H-DEB

1

Inc. (“TPL”) filed an opposition to Gunwerk’s motion. (Doc. Nos. 66, 67.) On September

2

4, 2020, TPL also filed a motion to file under seal its opposition and Exhibit C to its

3

opposition. (Doc. No. 65.)

4

TPL seeks to seal these documents pursuant to the Court’s protective order, (Doc.

5

No. 63), because they contain confidential information. (Doc. No. 65 at 1.) After

6

reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause exists to seal

7

the documents. Accordingly, the Court grants TPL’s request to file the documents under

8

seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the

9

information in a written order, and the Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed

10

documents under seal.

11

Nevertheless, the Court notes that with respect to its opposition brief, TPL seeks to

12

seal the entire document. Although the opposition contains some sealable information, the

13

entire document is not sealable. (See Doc. No. 66.) Thus, TPL’s sealing request is not

14

narrowly tailored. See Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (“Any

15

order sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only

16

the material that is protected.” (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501,

17

513 (1984))). As a result, the Court orders TPL to publicly file a revised redacted version

18

of its opposition within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 8, 2020
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
19-cv-02195-H-DEB