Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00290/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00290-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441ds Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD QUIPP, an individual 

Plaintiff,

vs.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company; GMG 

MOTORS, INC., D/B/A BMW OF SAN 

DIEGO, a California Corporation; and DOES 

1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17CV290-DMS-KSC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Judge: Dana M. Sabraw

Magistrate: Karen S. Crawford

Presently before the Court is an ex parte motion filed by Plaintiff DONALD QUIPP 

seeking leave to file under seal portions of BMW of North America, LLC’s (“BMW”) Certified 

Pre-Owned (“CPO”) Manual for the Court’s consideration in connection with Defendants, BMW 

and GMG MOTORS INC., D/B/A BMW OF SAN DIEGO’s Motions for Partial Summary 

Judgment. (ECF Docket Nos. 40-41). 

"Courts have long recognized 'a general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-cv03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Case 3:17-cv-00290-DMS-KSC Document 77 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). However, "[t]his right is not absolute. To 

balance the competing interests of the public's right of access against litigants' need for 

confidentiality, a party seeking to file under seal materials related to dispositive motions must 

provide 'compelling reasons' to do so." Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Under this standard, "a party seeking to seal materials 

must 'articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,' providing the court 

with 'articulable facts' identifying the particular interests favoring secrecy and showing how 

those interests outweigh the 'strong presumption' favoring disclosure." Id. (quoting Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178-81). "In general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when 

the materials 'might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private 

spite, promote public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179). "'The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, 

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal 

its records.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 

Here, Plaintiff has not provided compelling reasons for filing the identified documents 

under seal. Accordingly, the motion is denied. The Clerk of Court shall file the documents 

according to the regular filing procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00290-DMS-KSC Document 77 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2