Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00604/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00604-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W. BRADY and PATRICIA

M. BRADY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GRENDENE USA, INC., a Delaware

Corporation, and GRENDENE S.A., a

Brazil Corporation,

Defendants,

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

(ECF NOS. 90, 97)

On July 25, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to file under seal certain documents

that Plaintiffs want to submit in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that

Defendants filed on May 30, 2014. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiffs wish to seal:

• “Exhibits 7-12 and 14-15 to the Declaration of James W. Brady (Brady

Declaration) and Exhibits 7, 10-12 to the Declaration of Lauren Keller

Katzenellenbogan (“Katzenellenbogan Declaration”) in support of

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment”;

• “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,”

which contains information from the foregoing exhibits; and

3:12-0604-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC Document 102 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 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

• “Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed

Material Facts in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,” which

also includes information from the foregoing exhibits.

Plaintiffs assert Exhibits 7-12 and 14-15 to the Brady Declaration include

documents that Plaintiffs have designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential -

Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” These documents include correspondence regarding potential

licensing or purchase of Plaintiffs’ trademark, trade-show invoices, and a business

proposal from a third party. 

Plaintiffs assert Exhibits 7 and 10-12 to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration

include documentsthat Defendants have designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential

- Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

Plaintiffs assert “[g]ood cause exists for filing these documents under seal

because of the highly sensitive nature of the information in the Exhibits to the Brady

Declaration, and because the protective order requiresthe Plaintiffs to seek leave to file

the Exhibits to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration under seal.”

The Court concludes Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that

“compelling reasons” exist to seal the above materials. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty.

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “compelling

reasons,” supported by specific factual findings, are required to seal material attached

to a dispositive motion). 

First, with regard to the exhibits to the Brady Declaration, Plaintiffs’ request is

too broad. Having reviewed the sealed lodged materials, (ECF No. 98-2), the Court

finds the materials contain large swaths of information that do not appear to be as

“highly sensitive” as Plaintiffs assert. 

Second, with regard to the exhibits to the Katzenellenbogen Declaration, (ECF

No. 98-3), the Court notes the Protective Order in this case states that “Protected

Material” may only be filed in accordance with applicable law. (See ECF No. 38 ¶

13(c).) Because the documents Plaintiffs want sealed are in support of a dispositive

2 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC Document 102 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 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

motion, the fact that the documents were marked “Confidential” or “Confidential -

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” does not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard as

to the specific pieces of information that Plaintiffs want sealed. See Kamakana, 447

F.3d at 1183-84. The Court will therefore deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion

to File Documents Under Seal.

Defendants have also filed a motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 90.) 

Defendants seek leave to file under seal Exhibits A, B, F, G, H, N, P, and U to the

Quinto Declaration—all in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment that

Defendants filed on July 25, 2014, (ECF No. 92). Defendants assert they are seeking

leave to file these materials under seal for the sole reason that Plaintiffs designated

them as “Confidential” or “Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the

Protective Order. Defendants assert that none of these materials should be filed under

seal.

Having reviewed the above exhibits, (ECF No. 91-2), the Court agrees with

Defendants that there appear to be no “compelling reasons” to file these materials

under seal. The Court will therefore deny without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to

File Documents Under Seal.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 97), is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. If Plaintiffs wish to renew their request to seal portions of the exhibits to

the Brady Declaration, they may do so on or before August 15, 2014. If

Plaintiffs do not renew their request to seal portions of the exhibits to the

Brady Declaration, the materials now lodged at ECF No. 98-2 “will

remain lodged under seal without further consideration.” ECF

Admin. Policies & Proc. Manual § 2(j).

3. If Defendants wish to file a motion to seal portions of the exhibits to the

Katzenellenbogen Declaration that Defendants have marked

3 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC Document 102 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 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

“Confidential” or “Confidential- Attorneys’Eyes Only,” Defendants may

do so on or before August 15, 2014. If Defendants do not file such a

motion within the time permitted, the materials will be publicly filed

without further order of the Court.

4. Defendants’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 90), is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5. If Plaintiffs wish to file a motion to seal portions of the exhibits to the

Quinto Declaration (filed in support of Defendants’ July 25, 2014 Motion

for Summary Judgment) that Plaintiffs have marked “Confidential” or

“Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” Plaintiffs may do so on or before

August 15, 2014. If Plaintiffs do not file such a motion within the time

permitted, the materials will be publicly filed without further order of

the Court.

6. Any renewed motion to file documents under seal must demonstrate that

“compelling reasons” exist to seal each specific piece of information that

the moving party wants filed under seal.

7. To the extent possible, the parties are directed to publicly file redacted

versions of any documents containing sealed materials.

DATED: August 8, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 3:12-0604-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00604-GPC-KSC Document 102 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 4