Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01879/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01879-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

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

FLOWRIDER SURF, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

[ECF No. 100]

Defendant Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. (“PSD”) filed a Motion to File Under Seal 

seeking to file an entire motion and several exhibits under seal in connection with 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Docket No. 

100.) PSD explains that Plaintiffs have designated the exhibits “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR 

COUNSEL ONLY” under the Protective Order, and that portions of the motion to 

dismiss reference or paraphrase documents and correspondence designated 

“CONFIDENTIAL-FOR COUNSEL ONLY.”

I. Law Regarding The Right of Access to Judicial Records

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), the Supreme 

Court recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 597. The main reason for this general 

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 103 Filed 11/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

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

right is to accommodate “the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of . . 

. government.” Id. at 598. However, the Supreme Court also stated that “the right to 

inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” Id. at 589. “Every court has 

supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court 

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private 

spite or promote public scandal,” or to serve as a source of “business information that 

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Except for certain documents “traditionally kept secret,” federal courts begin a 

sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to 

seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by 

meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. That is, the party must “articulate[ ] 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” id., that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the “public interest 

in understanding the judicial process,” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th 

Cir. 1995). “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.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without 

further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, [also] does not satisfy the 

burden.” Id. at 1184. A party’s failure to meet the burden of articulating specific facts 

showing a “compelling reason” means that the “default posture of public access 

prevails.” Id. at 1182.

The “compelling reasons” standard applies fully to dispositive motions, such as the 

one at issue here. Id. at 1179. The “compelling reasons” standard is invoked even if the 

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 

order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he presumption of access is not rebutted where . . . 

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 103 Filed 11/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

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

documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a 

dispositive motion. The . . . ‘compelling reasons’ standard continues to apply.”).

In turn, the court must “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests” of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 

1135. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis 

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 

(citing Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1986)).

II. Discussion

As explained above, PSD is required to “present ‘articulable facts’ identifying the 

interests favoring continued security, and to show that these specific interests overc[o]me 

the presumption of access by outweighing the ‘public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (emphasis in original) (internal citations 

omitted). PSD fails to make this showing. Instead, PSD merely asserts in conclusory 

fashion that the motion to dismiss and certain exhibits contain confidential information 

concerning patent rights that Plaintiffs have designated as “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR 

COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to the Protective Order. PSD has not presented any 

supporting declarations, specific demonstrations of fact, or concrete examples of 

prejudice or harm that could result if these documents are filed in the public record. Nor 

has PSD identified what information in these documents is considered privileged or 

sensitive. This is not the particularized showing necessary to establish a “compelling”

interest. Additionally, it is not immediately clear to the Court how some of the 

information sought to be sealed would place Plaintiffs at a competitive disadvantage if 

disclosed to the public. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED.

The Court grants PSD leave to file a renewed motion to file under seal. The Court 

reminds PSD and Plaintiffs, the designating party, of the Protective Order, which states 

that any request to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential 

or privileged material.” (Docket No. 24.) PSD must support its motion with specific 

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 103 Filed 11/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

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

facts that demonstrate a compelling reason to seal the documents, supported by citations 

to authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 103 Filed 11/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4