Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

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

BONA FIDE CONGLOMERATE,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv0751-GPC-DHB

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION OF SOURCE

AMERICA FOR LEAVE TO FILE

NOTICE OF NEW FACTS IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 223]

v.

SOURCEAMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

On April 28, 2015, Defendant SourceAmerica filed an ex parte application for

leave to file a notice of new facts supporting its pending motion to seal (ECF No. 207). 

(ECF No. 223.) SourceAmerica explains that, in its motion to seal, it references a

pending preliminary injunction motion filed by SourceAmerica in its lawsuit against

SourceAmerica’s former general counsel in Virginia. (ECF No. 223 at 2.) The

Virginia court has now ruled on the preliminary injunction motion, so SourceAmerica

seeks to add that court’s ruling, as well as a protective order issued in the same case,

to its filings in support of the motion to seal pending in this Court. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to SourceAmerica’s application on May 5, 2015. 

(ECF No. 225.) In its opposition, Plaintiff sets forth its arguments against the

usefulness of the Virginia orders in deciding the motion to seal. (Id.) Plaintiff also

asksthe Court to take judicial notice of a newspaper article written by Scott Daugherty

called Lawyer: Nonprofit firm rigged bids on jobs for disabled, published in The

- 1 - 14cv0751-GPC-DHB

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 232 Filed 06/01/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

Virginian-Pilot on April 19, 2015. (ECF No. 225-2.) Plaintiff argues that the Court

may judicially notice the article under Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence

because the existence and publication of newspaper articles are not subject to

reasonable dispute and Plaintiff offers it only to show what is in the public realm. (Id.

at 2 (quoting Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954,

960 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

The Court construes SourceAmerica’s ex parte application for leave to file its

notice of new facts (ECF No. 223) as a request for judicial notice and DENIES the

request because the Virginia Court’s orders are irrelevant to the disposition of the

present motion to seal. See Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica,

450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to take judicial notice of reports not

relevant to the resolution of the matters before the court); Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.

Co., 205 F.3d 386, 393 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (same).

As to Plaintiff’s request, the Court acknowledges that under Federal Rule of

Evidence 201, a court may take notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute that are

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Additionally, Plaintiff is

correct that “[c]ourts may take judicial notice of publications introduced to ‘indicate

what wasin the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those articles were

in fact true.’” Von Saher, 592 F.3d at 960 (quoting Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance

Capital Mgmt., 435 F.3d 396, 401 n.15 (3d Cir. 2006)). Here, the publication can be

readily accessed and confirmed. Plaintiff only seeks judicial notice to show that this

case and some of the subject matter of SourceAmerica’s pending motion to seal is in

the public realm. The Court, therefore, finds it appropriate to judicially notice this

article and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 225-2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv0751-GPC-DHB

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 232 Filed 06/01/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2