Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. v. Gunwerks, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TORREY PINES LOGIC, INC., Case No.: 19-cv-02195-H-DEB 12 Plaintiff, Counterdefendant, ORDER: 13 v. 14 (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S GUNWERKS, LLC, MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant, Counterclaimant. UNDER SEAL; 16 [Doc. No. 86.] 17 18 (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE THE PROPOSED 19 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND 20 [Doc. No. 87.] 21 22 (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PUBLICLY FILE A REDACTED 23 VERSION OF ITS REPLY 24 25 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. 26 (“TPL”) filed a motion to dismiss Gunwerks’s amended counterclaims for lack of subject 27 matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 76.) On October 26, 2020, 28 TPL filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 87.) On October 26, 2020, 1 || TPL also filed a motion to file under seal its reply brief and Exhibits D-F to its reply. (Doc. 2 || No. 86.) 3 TPL seeks to seal these documents pursuant to the Court’s protective order, (Doc. 4 ||No. 63), because they contain confidential information. (Doc. No. 86 at 1.) After 5 ||reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause exists to seal 6 ||the documents. Accordingly, the Court grants TPL’s request to file the documents under 7 without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the 8 ||information in a written order, and the Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed 9 ||documents under seal. 10 Nevertheless, the Court notes that with respect to its reply brief, TPL seeks to seal 11 |/the entire document. Although the reply contains some sealable information, the entire 12 ||}document is not sealable. (See Doc. No. 87.) Thus, TPL’s sealing request is not narrowly 13 |/tailored. See Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (“Any order 14 |/sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only the 15 || material that is protected.” (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 16 (1984))). As a result, the Court orders TPL to publicly file a redacted version of its 17 reply brief within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.' 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: October 26, 2020 | | | ul | | | 20 MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 23 24 25 26 27 The Court again advises TPL that when a document is not entirely sealable, a public, redacted 28 version of the document should be concurrently filed along with the motion to seal and the sealed lodgment.