Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00575/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00575-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)

---

1 

17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA 

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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AAFE PRODUCTS CORP. a California 

corporation, JBE INTERNATIONAL, 

LLC, a California limited liability 

company, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL 

(Doc. No. 22) 

Presently before the Court is Defendants Joshua Bernheim and Brian Bernheim’s 

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion to seal portions of the proposed 

Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief as to AAFE Products 

Corp., JBE International LLC, BSDC, Inc., KADC, Inc., Purestrike, Inc., BNRI Corp., fka 

Bernheim & Rice, Inc., Brian Bernheim, Joshua Bernheim, and Jared Coates (“AAFE 

Stipulated Order”). (Doc. No. 22.) 

 Courts have historically recognized a “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). “Unless a particular court record is one 

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA Document 24 Filed 08/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA 

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

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the 

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 

 Here, Defendants seek to seal the AAFE Stipulated Order as it identifies by name 

and residential addresses non-party individuals, who share an ownership interest in real 

property used as collateral for the security of the monetary judgment. (Doc. No. 22 at 1.) 

Additionally, the motion is unopposed and is redacted in a limited fashion as to only 

prevent disclosure of the identity, status, and addresses of the non-party individuals. (Id. at 

1, 3.) 

 Consequently, finding the motion narrowly tailored and that the justifications for 

sealing outweigh the public’s interest in the non-party’s personal information, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (acknowledging the 

privacy interests implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information); see also 

Opperman v. Path, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 17, 2017) (finding a motion to seal an exhibit that contained the names, email 

addresses, and phone numbers of non-party users warranted). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00575-AJB-JMA Document 24 Filed 08/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2