Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02158/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

B2B CFO PARTNERS, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; B2B CFO, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company; JERRY MILLS and 

CHRISTINE MILLS, individuals 

 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

vs. 

KENNETH A. KAUFMAN, an individual; 

KAUFMAN ENTERPRSE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a 

Utah limited liability company; CFO WISE, INC., 

a Utah corporation; THE CFO WISE PROMISE, 

LLC, a Utah limited liability company, 

 Defendants/Counterclaimants. 

 

 

CV 09-2158-PHX-JAT 

 ORDER 

 

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants motion to seal (Doc. #73) 

seeking to seal the motion for partial summary judgment, motion for preliminary injunction 

and motion for permanent injunction (Doc. #74) currently lodged under seal (the statement 

of facts and supporting affidavit are also lodged under seal (Docs. ##75 and 77)). 

 As this Court noted in the protective order (Doc. #30 at7) any motion to seal must 

meet the standard set out in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

Case 2:09-cv-02158-JAT Document 79 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, for a dispositive motion, a party must show 

compelling reasons to file under seal. Id. at 1179. Indeed, there is a presumption of access 

to dispositive pleadings and attachments, and compelling reasons must be shown to rebut 

this presumption. Id. at 1180. Finally, generalized statements supporting sealing are 

inadequate; a party must articulate specific facts to justify sealing, and must do so with 

respect to each item sought to be sealed. Id. at 1183-84. 

 In this case, Plaintiffs’ sole argument for sealing is, “Plaintiffs have attached certain 

versions of and excerpts from training manuals of Plaintiffs and Defendants, which the 

respective parties contend are confidential, proprietary, and should at this stage of the 

litigation be withheld from the public record.” Doc. #73 at 1. This justification falls far 

below the compelling reasons required to justify sealing. 

First, the fact that the parties agree amongst themselves that they would prefer 

something not be in the public record is not a compelling reason to seal. Second, Plaintiffs 

make no effort to comply with Kamakana in that they do not explain item by item why an 

exhibit or argument must be sealed. Indeed, they seek to seal the entire motion, which 

clearly contains law and argument that should not be sealed. Third, in assessing the need 

for confidentiality, the Kamakana court considered whether the same information was 

otherwise publically available. 447 F.3d at 1184. In this case, Plaintiffs make no showing 

that these training materials have not been distributed so widely that there is no lingering 

need for confidentiality (for example, Plaintiffs make no argument that upon giving these 

Case 2:09-cv-02158-JAT Document 79 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 4
3

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

materials to Defendant Kaufman prior to this litigation, Plaintiffs sought any confidentiality 

agreement in return). 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that these documents should be sealed “at this stage” of the 

litigation. As the Kamakana court notes, however, a grant of summary judgment is a 

resolution of the case, and, “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or 

summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding of 

the judicial process and of significant public events.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotations 

omitted). Moreover, in this case, Plaintiffs seek both a preliminary injunction and a 

permanent injunction from this Court covering the “confidential” materials. Generally, this 

Court will not issue its reasoned opinions under seal. And the Court cannot conceive how it 

could bind people or entities to an injunction issued under seal when the people and entities 

have no access to either the Court’s opinion or the materials that are the subject of the 

injunction. 

As the Kamakana court noted, it is not this Court’s burden to justify unsealing a 

document; it is the party’s burden to overcome the presumption of access to the courts. Id. 

at 1181-82. Plaintiffs have failed to meet such burden in this case. As a result, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to seal (Doc. #73) is denied; the Clerk of the Court 

shall unseal Docs. ## 74, 75, and 77. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for another Rule 16 conference 

(Doc. #76) is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing either a motion or stipulation 

Case 2:09-cv-02158-JAT Document 79 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 4
4

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

setting forth a schedule to accomplish their stated goal of, “establishing an efficient, 

meaningful schedule for consideration” of Plaintiffs’ motions, including seeking an 

expedited briefing schedule on the motion for partial summary judgment, preliminary 

injunction and permanent injunction. 

Dated this 25th day of May, 2010. 

Case 2:09-cv-02158-JAT Document 79 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 4