Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01336/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01336-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1 06cv1336 BTM(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE INFOSONICS CORPORATION

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

CASE NO. 06cv1336 BTM(WMc)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SEAL COURT

DOCUMENTS

Defendants have filed a motion to file under seal exhibits that are submitted by

Plaintiffs in opposition to Defendants Marx and Picow’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

The Supreme Court has held that there is a common law right of access to records

in civil proceedings: “It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Courts are required to

start “with a strong presumption in favor of access.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d

1430,1434 (9th Cir. 1995). 

However, the presumption can be overcome by sufficiently important countervailing

interests. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1102

(9th Cir. 1999). “After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must

base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 62 Filed 07/24/07 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

2 06cv1336 BTM(WMc)

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. 

Defendants make a general claim that the exhibits at issue – interrogatory responses

and transcripts of the depositions of Marx and Picow – should be sealed because other

plaintiffs in actions that are subject to a discovery stay under the PSLRA could use the

information against Defendants. Defendants do not specify which information could be

harmful or how it could be used against them.

Defendants’ vague assertion of prejudice does not constitute a compelling reason for

sealing the interrogatory responses and deposition transcripts. However, the Court finds that

discrete portions of the deposition transcripts reveal private information that is not necessary

to the litigation - specifically, the addresses of Marx and Picow (Marx Depo. Tr. 4:11; Picow

Depo. Tr. 2:9-11) and information regarding Picow’s family (Picow Depo. Tr. 6:17-7:1; 15:16-

22). This information should be redacted. 

The parties are ORDERED to file the Declaration of Francis A. Bottini, Jr. and

attached exhibits, redacting the information identified above, within 5 business days of the

filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 24, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 62 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2