Echologics, LLC v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ECHOLOGICS, LLC, MUELLER Case No.: 3:21-cv-01147-RBM-AHG INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 12 and MUELLER CANADA, LTD. d/b/a ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 ECHOLOGICS, FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 Plaintiffs, [Doc. 80] 15 v. 16 ORBIS INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is a motion to seal filed on November 18, 2022 by 21 Defendant Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Doc. 80 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).) 22 Plaintiffs Echologics, LLC, Mueller International, LLC, and Mueller Canada, Ltd. d/b/a 23 Echologics (“Plaintiffs”) filed a response to Defendant’s Motion on December 13, 2022. 24 (Doc. 88 (“Response”).) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is 25 GRANTED. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 28 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 1 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 2 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 3 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 4 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 5 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 6 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 7 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 8 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 9 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 10 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 11 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 12 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 13 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 14 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 15 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does 16 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 17 The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can 18 show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 19 the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 20 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 21 U.S. at 598). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of 22 the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular 23 case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 24 Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being 25 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 26 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 27 documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, 28 development, or commercial information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2885- 1 LHK, 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 2 269(c)(1)(G)). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Defendant seeks to seal portions of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend 5 Pleadings and Leave to Amend Final Invalidity Contentions. Specifically, Defendant seeks 6 to seal portions of Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, and P to the Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer 7 because that information has been designated Confidential by Plaintiffs pursuant to the 8 parties’ stipulated protective order. (See Mot. at 4–5.) 9 Pursuant to Section IV.B of this Court’s Chamber Rules, Plaintiffs submitted a 10 Response in support of Defendant’s motion to seal. In their Response, Plaintiffs withdraw 11 their confidentiality designations as to the deposition excerpts and documents attached as 12 Exhibits M, N, O, and P to the Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer, and seek an order sealing 13 only portions of Exhibits K and L. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs argue sealing is appropriate in this 14 case because “[d]isclosure of the information that Plaintiffs seek to remain under seal in 15 Exhibits K and L would be likely to cause commercial harm to Plaintiffs and give 16 Plaintiffs’ competitors an unfair advantage.” (Id. at 4 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178– 17 79).) Plaintiffs further argue the information at issue describes Plaintiffs’ “manufacturing 18 processes, methods of production, and the internal structure of Plaintiffs’ product,” as well 19 as “confidential and sensitive commercial information about Plaintiffs’ product 20 development and approval processes.” (Id.) 21 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal portions of Exhibits K and L to the 22 Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions to 23 these exhibits, the Court finds the proposed redactions and sealing request narrowly 24 tailored to protect only that information directly related to Plaintiffs’ commercially 25 sensitive information. Additionally, the Court finds that the information, if disclosed, 26 could potentially hurt Plaintiffs’ competitive standing. See Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. 27 Fiber Rsch. Int’l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 1035730, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 28 Mar. 17, 2017) (granting motion to seal documents where court found such information 1 || “could be improperly used” by competitors). 2 Hr, CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 80). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||DATE: December 14, 2022 6 Fath Baermudls, Mpitnyes 7 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28