Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01312/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01312-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

TESORO REFINING AND

MARKETING COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA FINEST OIL, a

California corporation, RAAD

ATTISHA, an individual, HOSSOM

THEWENY, an individual, NAZAR

THEWENY, an individual, and DOES

1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

(DKT. NO. 70)

On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to

Defendant California Finest Oil’s counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 72.) Along with the motion

for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion to file two declarations and attached

exhibits under seal. (Dkt. No. 70.) In the motion to file under seal, Plaintiff asserts

these documents should be filed under seal because they contain information and

documents designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order

entered into by the parties on December 14, 2012, (Dkt. No. 25), and approved by

Judge Gallo on December 19, 2012, (Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff further asserts that three

3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01312-WVG Document 85 Filed 01/16/14 Page 1 of 2
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

exhibits contain Plaintiff’s confidential internal, proprietary business and financial

information. (Dkt. No. 70 at 3.) 

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79; cf. id. at

1179-80 (contrasting the “compelling reasons” standard with the lower “good cause”

standard applied to motions to seal documents submitted in support of non-dispositive

motions). Plaintiff has not set forth such compelling reasons to justify sealing the

documents set forth in the motion to file under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Because the documents Plaintiff seeks to seal are in support of a dispositive motion,

the fact that the documents were marked or deemed “Confidential” by the parties does

not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard as to the specific pieces of

information that Plaintiff wantssealed. See id. at 1183-84;see also Foltz v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134-38 (9th Cir. 2003).

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal, (Dkt. No. 70), is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have until January 22, 2014, to

file a motion to seal that sets forth the compelling reasons for sealing the specific

pieces of information that Plaintiff seeks to seal. The documents currently lodged

under seal at Dkt. No. 71-1 through 71-7 may remain so lodged until the Court decides

Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-01312-WVG Document 85 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 2