Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Case No.: 18cv73-MMA (AGS) 9 California limited liability company, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 10 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Plaintiff, EXHIBIT A TO THE STEVEN A. 11 v. CALOIARO DECLARATION 12 ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a [Doc. No. 122] New Jersey corporation, 13 14 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 ||marks omitted). 2 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: December 20, 2019 18 Miku Ld Lille 19 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 50 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28