Zaback v. Kellogg Sales Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARLAN ZABACK, individually and on Case No.: 3:20-cv-00268-BEN-MSB behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO Plaintiff, 13 FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; v. 14 [ECF No. 3] KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Pursuant 19 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendant requests the Court seal the precise 20 retail sales of the product at issue in this action. (Mot. to File Docs. Under Seal, ECF No. 21 3). The Court finds the pleadings sufficiently establish the Court’s subject matter 22 jurisdiction over this case. Moreover, Defendant’s justifications for sealing the 23 Declaration are inadequate. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to File Under 24 Seal is DENIED. 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City 27 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) quoting Nixon v. Warner 28 1 || Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). There is “a strong presumption in 2 favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 3 |} 1135 (9th Cir.2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A party seeking to seal 4 || a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting 5 || the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons 6 || supported by specific factual findings ... that outweigh the general history of access and 7 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 8 judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation marks 9 omitted). This presumption can be overcome “only by an overriding right or interest 10 || ‘based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly 11 tailored to serve that interest.’’” Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 12 ||920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 446 13 501, 510 (1985). 14 The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Seal and does not find the 15 |}compelling reasons to justify sealing the Declaration concerned are present. While the 16 || Declaration contains a single sales figure, it does not contain other “confidential business 17 || materials...marketing strategies...product development plans, unused prototypes, [or] 18 || detailed testimony regarding the same” that would help Defendant override the strong 19 || presumption in favor of access to court records. Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2012 WL 20 || 1899838, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012). 21 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall file the unredacted 22 || version of the Declaration contained in ECF No. 1, Exhibit 3, lodged at Doc. No. 4, in the 23 public record. Defendant has five days to withdraw the unredacted version of the 24 || Declaration or it shall be filed in the public record in accordance with this Order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 26 7 DATED: July 22, 2020 on. Roger T. Benitez 28 United States District Court