Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

SOPHIA & CHLOE, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv2472 AJB (KSC)

ORDER:

1) DENYING BRIGHTON’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL,

[Doc. No. 42]; and 

2) DENYING REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO MANUALLY LODGE

PHYSICAL EXEMPLARS, [Doc.

No. 45]. 

The two matters before the Court are (1) Brighton Collectibles, LLC’s (“Brighton”

or “Defendant”) motion to file under seal its motion for summary judgment and attached

documents and (2) Brighton’s request for leave to manually lodge physical exemplars of

the jewelry at issue. For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

This is a copyright and trade dress infringement action brought by Plaintiff Sophia

& Chloe, Inc (“Sophia” or “Plaintiff”) against Brighton for alleged infringement of

Sophia’s copyrighted jewelry designs and trade dress. (Doc. No. 1.) Sophia alleges that

Brighton manufactured, advertised and sold, without their permission, jewelry that used

Sophia’s copyrighted designs. (Id. at 6-8). Sophia brought this action alleging four

causes of action: (1) Copyright Infringement; (2) Trade Dress Infringement under 15

1 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/08/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Unfair Competition under California Common Law; and (4) Unfair

Competition Under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. & 17500 et

seq. (Id. at 10-14.) 

On March 28, 2014, Brighton filed a motion for summary judgment, or, in the

alternative summary adjudication. (Doc. No. 46.) Brighton now seeks to file under seal,

an unredacted version of that Motion as well as an unredacted version of the Declaration

of Robert Wunderlich in support of Brighton’s Motion. (Doc. No. 45.) Brighton also

requests leave to lodge physical exemplars of the jewelry at issue with the Court. (Doc.

No. 45.) 

II. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

A. Legal Standards

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. Kamakana v. City and 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 id. 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. 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.” Id. (citing

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

A strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositve

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Thus, to

warrant the Court’s grant of the request to seal, Brighton must show “compelling

2 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/08/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

reasons.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Relevant factors include the “public interest in

understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

improper use . . .” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th Cir.

2010)(citations omitted). 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. Id. 

B. Discussion

In its motion to file under seal, Brighton provides barely any details for the Court

to make an informed and reasoned analysis in accordance with Ninth Circuit standards. 

Brighton seeks to seal portions of its motion for summary judgment that references: (1)

Sophia’s total annual sales revenue from 2007-2013; (2) the quantity of sales of Sophia’s

jewelry at issue; and (3) Sophia’s advertising expenditures. Additionally, the Declaration of Robert Wunderlich discloses details that have been stipulated by the Parties as

“Confidential” or “attorney’s eyes only.” Brighton also notes that Sophia’s counsel also

request this information to be filed under seal. 

However, with such sparse information, the Court is unable to "conscientiously

balance the competing interests of the public and the parties who seeks to keep certain

judicial records secret," let alone base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate

the factual basis for its ruling. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Though the Parties

themselves may have stipulated to the confidential nature of this information, the

“compelling reasons” standard is invoked even if the motion, or its attachments, were

previously filed under seal or protective order. Id. at 1179. 

Accordingly, Brighton has failed to meet its burden to justify sealing the information listed. The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice. Brighton

may refile its motion to seal, articulating details that will allow the Court to make a

reasoned decision grounded on a factual basis. Further, as the information sought to be

3 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/08/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

sealed appears to be solely related to Sophia’s business and proprietary interests, the

Court recommends the Parties file a Joint Motion to Seal so that Sophia may put forth its

reasons to seal the “confidential” information. 

II. REQUEST TO LODGE PHYSICAL EXEMPLARS

Brighton asks for leave to manually lodge with the Court physical exemplars of

the jewelry at issue in this case. The Court is aware that photographs alone are inadequate for a full and fair evaluation of Brighton’s Motion and the Court understands the

need for a physical examination of the actual jewelry itself given that this is a copyright

and trade dress infringement action. 

However, the Court is unable to grant Brighton’s request. Practically speaking,

the Court simply does not have the capability to store a party’s physical evidence. 

Though the exemplars may be small, the Court does not have a secure space that will

safely store the jewelry for period of time requested by Brighton. As stated above, the

Court is mindful of Brighton’s concern that mere photographic representations will not

adequately convey the best evidence for the issues on summary judgment. The Court

finds the best solution is to allow Brighton to bring the jewelry and present it to the

Court at the time of the hearing for this matter, currently scheduled for June 26, 2014. 

The Court will make a detailed examination of the physical exemplars then. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason Brighton's Motion to File Under Seal and Request to

Lodge Physical Exemplars are DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to maintain the currently sealed lodged proposed

documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44). The Parties must refile a Motion to File

Under Seal, addressing the deficiencies noted herein, on or before April 18, 2014. If the

Parties fail to do so, or fail to meet their burden of showing compelling reasons to

//

//

//

4 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/08/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

 warrant sealing, the Court will order the sealed lodged documents unsealed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

5 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/08/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5