Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01874/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01874-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARMER BOYS FOOD, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FARMBURGER, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01874-KAW 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 67, 68

On June 26, 2015, Defendants filed two administrative motions to file documents under 

seal. The motions concern documents filed in connection with the parties' cross-motions for 

summary judgment. Defendants bring the motions solely because Plaintiffs have designated the 

material at issue "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." 

Defendants' first motion does not conform to the filing requirements set forth in Civil 

Local Rule 79-5. The motion seeks to seal portions of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion 

for summary judgment and the following exhibits in their entirety: D, E, G, P, R, U, V, W, X, Z, 

BB, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, NN, and OO. Defendants, however, have only included a redacted 

version of their opposition, which is inconsistent with applicable filing requirements. See Civil 

L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). This prevents the Court from reviewing the proposed redactions, and 

consequently, the motion to seal is DENIED as to Defendants' opposition.

Defendants' second motion also does not conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5. The motion 

seeks to seal portions of Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and the same exhibits 

listed above. With respect to this motion, the unredacted version of the cross-motion is not 

highlighted, so the Court is unable to compare it with the redacted version in order to determine 

whether the proposed redactions are appropriate. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). For these reasons, 

the motion to seal is DENIED with respect to Defendants' cross-motion.

In their declaration in support of the motions to seal, Plaintiffs only address exhibits P, U, 

Case 4:14-cv-01874-KAW Document 84 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BB, EE, FF, HH, and OO. They do not address the remaining exhibits Defendants seek to file 

under seal. Therefore, as to the exhibits Plaintiffs do not discuss, the motions to seal are DENIED. 

See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2). With respect to the exhibits Plaintiffs do discuss in their declaration, 

the Court finds that the proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only 

sealable material and that Plaintiffs have not set forth compelling reasons that would justify 

sealing. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b); see Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 

2009) (party seeking to file documents under seal "must overcome a strong presumption of access 

by showing that compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure") (citation, quotations, and 

modifications omitted) . Accordingly, the motions to seal are also DENIED as to these exhibits.

If the parties wish to present any material under seal in connection with their cross-motions 

for summary judgment, they shall meet and confer to determine what material, if any, may be 

properly filed under seal. After sufficiently meeting and conferring, the parties may file renewed 

motions to seal, but only if those motions comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and only if the 

designating party is able to articulate compelling reasons, consistent with Ninth Circuit law, that 

justify filing material under seal. Given the existing briefing schedule and the upcoming July 30, 

2015 motion hearing, any renewed motion to seal shall be filed by no later than Monday, July 20, 

2015. Any supporting declaration shall be filed by no later than July 23, 2015. Any renewed 

motion shall also include a proposed order that "lists in table format each document or portion 

thereof that is sought to be sealed," complete with page, paragraph, and line references. See Civil 

L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). Courtesy copies shall be delivered to chambers by no later than noon the day 

after filing. The parties shall also review Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) when preparing courtesy 

copies, as the papers provided in connection in the instant motions were unusable by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

07/16/2015

Case 4:14-cv-01874-KAW Document 84 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2