Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-555-L-NLS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR AN ORDER 

PERMITTING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Pending before the Court is Defendants' unopposed motion to file under seal 32 

exhibits in support of their summary judgment motion. For the reasons which follow, the

motion is denied. 

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 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 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 68 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

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). Defendants' summary judgment motion is more than tangentially related 

to the merits. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

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). 

Defendants' request is based primarily on the claims of proprietary and securitysensitive nature of the documents. They request sealing each of the 32 exhibits in its 

entirety, a total of 239 pages. Although their arguments in support of sealing may be 

sufficient to warrant sealing portions of the exhibits, based on review of the exhibits, it 

appears that every listed exhibit does not warrant sealing in its entirety. 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 68 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion is denied without prejudice to 

publicly file redacted versions of the exhibits, and move to seal only the portions as to 

which a particularized showing can be made.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 68 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3