San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Center of San Diego LLC et al

Filing 80

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 78 Amended Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 5/08/2024. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAN DIEGO DETOX, LLC,

Case No.: 3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DETOX CENTER OF SAN DIEGO LLC,
et al.,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART AMENDED
MOTION TO SEAL
[Doc. 78]

Defendants.

17
18

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff San Diego Detox’s Amended Motion

19

to Seal Pursuant to [77] Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Seal [Docs.

20

51, 57, 63] (“Amended Motion to Seal”). (Doc. 78.) For the reasons discussed below,

21

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

The Court incorporates its prior explanation of Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal 1, 2, and

24

3 and Plaintiff’s bases to request sealing of accompanying lodged documents. (Doc. 77.)

25

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public

27

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

28

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one
1
3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL

1

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

2

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v.

3

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption

4

of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts … to have a measure of accountability

5

and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety

6

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v.

7

Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

8

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong

9

presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this

10

burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more

11

than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.

12

When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the

13

“compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does

14

not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id.

15

The “compelling reasons” standard applies to documents related to a motion for

16

summary judgment as well as a motion for preliminary injunction. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135–

17

36; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1103; see also In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity

18

Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2012) (compelling reasons standard

19

applied to Daubert motion filed in connection with pending summary judgment motion).

20

The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can show that

21

the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

22

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or

23

release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The

24

decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon

25

consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435

26

U.S. at 599.

27

Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being

28

used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”
2
3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL

1

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

2

documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research,

3

development, or commercial information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2885-

4

LHK, 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

269(c)(1)(G)). Additionally, courts have been willing to seal court filings containing

6

confidential business material, “such as marketing strategies, product development plans,

7

licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin data,” where the “parties have been able

8

to point to concrete factual information” to justify sealing. Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-

9

2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (collecting cases);

10

see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling

11

reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”);

12

Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL

13

1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal

14

plaintiff’s “confidential financial and pricing information”). Because Plaintiff’s sealing

15

motions concern their briefing on the cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 51, 57,

16

63), the compelling reasons standard applies.

17

III.

DISCUSSION

18

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Seal and accompanying

19

lodged documents. (Docs. 78, 79.) In Plaintiff’s Amended Motion, it explains it is not

20

seeking to renew its request to seal (1) Doc. 52-5, SDD 217, (2) Doc. 52-8, Exhibit 8, and

21

(3) Doc. 50-5, Exhibit 21, and explains Exhibit 21 was included inadvertently. (Doc. 78 at

22

2.)1 Additionally, Plaintiff renews its request to seal (1) Doc. 52-10, Exhibit 22, (2) Doc.

23

52-10, Exhibit 23, (3) the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s MSJ, (4) the unredacted version

24

of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ, and (5) the Unredacted Joint Statement of

25

Disputed and Undisputed Facts re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. (Id. at 2–3.)

26
27
28

1

The Court cites the CM/ECF pagination unless otherwise noted.
3
3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL

1

The Court addresses these documents below.

2

1.

3

Plaintiff explains Exhibit 22 is “Defendant’s financial statement.” (Id. at 2.) The

4

Court has reviewed Exhibit 22 (Doc. 79 at 2–6) and determines there are compelling

5

reasons to seal Defendants’ financial statement. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

Exhibit 22

6

2.

7

Plaintiff explains Exhibit 22 is “Plaintiff’s internal document which shows non-

8

public click-through and impression data by month of SanDiegoDetox.com for Google

9

AdWords, including its marketing expenses related thereto, and such internal metrics

10

performance and financial metrics are highly confidential and would give competitors

11

insight into Plaintiff’s budget and non-public strategies.” (Doc. 78 at 2.) The Court has

12

reviewed Exhibit 22 (Doc. 79 at 8) and determines there are compelling reasons to seal this

13

Google AdWords data. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

Exhibit 23

14

3.

15

The Court has reviewed the proposed redacted portions of Plaintiff’s MSJ. (Doc.

16

79-1.) The Court determines there are compelling reasons to seal the redacted portions

17

consistent with this Court’s prior order concerning Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal 1, 2 and 3

18

(Doc. 77) and the Court’s sealing Exhibits 22 and 23 above. However, the Court does not

19

find compelling reasons to seal redacted portions derived from Doc. 52-8, Exhibit 8, for

20

which Plaintiff is not renewing its sealing motion.

Unredacted Motion

21

4.

22

The Court has reviewed the proposed redacted portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to

23

Defendant’s MSJ. (Doc. 79-2.) The Court determines there are compelling reasons to seal

24

the redacted portions consistent with this Court’s prior order concerning Plaintiff’s Motions

25

to Seal 1, 2 and 3 (Doc. 77) and the Court’s sealing Exhibits 22 and 23 above. However,

26

the Court does not find compelling reasons to redact any other citation not addressed in the

27

Court’s sealing orders. (See e.g., Doc. 79-2 at 24.)

28

///

Unredacted Opposition

4
3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL

1

5.

2

The Court has reviewed the Unredacted Joint Statement of Disputed and Undisputed

3

Facts re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 79-3.) The Court determines there

4

are compelling reasons to seal the redacted portions consistent with this Court’s prior order

5

concerning Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal 1, 2 and 3 (Doc. 77) and the Court’s sealing Exhibits

6

22 and 23 above.

Unredacted Joint Statement

7

IV.

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Seal (Doc. 78) is

9

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is ORDERED to publicly file

10

the following on the docket on or before May 10, 2024:

11

1.

Doc. 52-5, SDD 217 and Doc. 52-8, Exhibit 8; and

12

2.

Any proposed redacted portion of Plaintiff’s MSJ (Doc. 79-1) and Plaintiff’s

13

Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ (Doc. 79-2) inconsistent with the Court’s

14

opinion above and the Court’s prior sealing order (Doc. 77).

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 8, 2024
_____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL