Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02148/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02148-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

17cv2148-BEN-LL 

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 

NATURAL THOUGHTS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PERFORMANCE TOUCH, LLC; THE 

HYGENIC CORPORATION; 

PERFORMANCE HEALTH HOLDINGS

CORPORATION; and DOES 2-10, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17cv2148-BEN-LL 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL 

[ECF No. 96] 

 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ “Renewed Motion to File Certain 

Documents and/or Portions of Documents Under Seal.” See ECF No. 96. Good cause 

appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Renewed Motion to file the following 

documents under seal: 

1. The unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 65] and 

Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 12 in support. 

2. The unredacted version of Defendant’s Opposition [ECF No. 71] and the 

unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B in support. The Court further 

GRANTS Defendants’ request to substitute the redacted versions of Exhibits 

A and D [ECF No. 96-2 and 96-3] for the currently filed Exhibits A and D 

Case 3:17-cv-02148-BEN-LL Document 97 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17cv2148-BEN-LL 

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

[ECF No. 71-2 and 71-5]. 

3. The unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Reply [ECF No. 76]. 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request to file Exhibit 13 of Plaintiff’s Reply under 

seal. Specifically, Defendants requests Exhibit 13 be filed under seal because it is an 

“internal email communication between Defendants’ employees, sent during the time of 

their employment[.]” ECF No. 96 at 8. Upon the Court’s review however, Exhibit 13 

contains Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for 

Production of Documents and has already been publicly filed. 

It appears this portion of Defendants’ Renewed Motion is mistakenly referencing 

Exhibits 9-13 of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order. See ECF 

Nos. 79, 80. Instead, the Court notes the Parties’ previous Motion to Seal [ECF No. 77] 

requested that Exhibit 15 (rather than Exhibit 13) be filed under seal because it contained 

“a link to documents that Defendants have designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” ECF No. 77 at 3. Per 

Defendants’ representations however, such links have been (or at least can be) “disabled” 

so that this exhibit can “be publicly filed without harming or prejudicing Defendants.” See 

ECF No. 96 at 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2019 

Case 3:17-cv-02148-BEN-LL Document 97 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2