Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00786/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00786-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0014 Clayton Act

---

1

18-cv-0786-L-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAYMENT LOGISTICS LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIGHTHOUSE NETWORK, LLC; 

SHIFT4 CORPORATION; AND SHIFT4 

PAYMENTS, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-0786-L-AGS

ORDER GRANTING 

APPLICATIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL [Docs. 99, 105, 108, 111]

Pending before the Court are four unopposed applications to file under seal portions 

of Plaintiff Payment Logistics Limited’s (“PLL”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

and portions of the briefing related to Defendants’ Lighthouse Network, LLC, Shift4 

Corporation, Shift4 Payments, LLC (“Shift4”) motion to dismiss [docs. 99, 105, 108, 111].

For the reasons which follow, each application is GRANTED. 

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to seal therefore 

does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts and warrant 

Case 3:18-cv-00786-L-AGS Document 116 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-0786-L-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong presumption applies in 

favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 

bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access by meeting the 

“compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling reasons standard applies to 

all motions except those that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center 

for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 

To meet its burden, the moving party must make a "particularized showing," 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and, further,

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. 

In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After 

considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, 

it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis 

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in 

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to 

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

release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of records may lead 

to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted). 

The instant requests are based primarily on the highly sensitive nature of documents

referred to and quoted in its SAC. These documents bear relevance to Shift4’s internal 

discussions regarding research and development, business strategy, projections, operation, 

and other confidential, proprietary, and sensitive information. The trade secret nature of 

these documents suffices to meet the compelling reasons standard. See Apple Inc. v. 

Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that 

Case 3:18-cv-00786-L-AGS Document 116 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-0786-L-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 

overcome this strong presumption [in favor of access to documents.]”) (citing EEOC v. 

Erection Co. Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, each application to 

seal [docs. 99, 105, 108, 111] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file under seal the 

following: (1) the redacted portions of SAC, (2) portions of Shift4’s memorandum of points 

and authorities in support of Shift4’s motion to dismiss PLL’s SAC, (3) the redacted 

portions of PLL’s opposition to Shift4’s motion to dismiss, and (4) the redacted portions 

of Shift4’s reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of Shift4’s motion to 

dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00786-L-AGS Document 116 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3