Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

SOPHIA & CHLOE, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv2472 AJB (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SEAL, (Doc. No. 52);

and

(2) SEALING DOCUMENTS

LODGED WITH THE COURT,

(Doc. Nos. 43, 44). 

On April 8, 2014, the Court issued an order denying Defendant Brighton Collectibles, LLC’s motion to file under seal its motion for summary judgment and attached

documents. The Court found that Brighton did not offer any justifications that met the

“compelling reasons” standard, under Ninth Circuit case law, that would warrant the

sealing of its judicial records and documents. (Doc. No. 51.) The Court granted the

Parties additional time to file a motion that would provide the Court with enough facts so

that it may “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for

its ruling.” See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th

Cir 2006). 

1 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 53 Filed 04/21/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

Come now before the Court is Plaintiff Sophia & Chloe, Inc’s motion to seal.

1

(Doc. No. 52.) Plaintiff contends that the unredacted motion for summary judgment and

related documents should be sealed as they contains financial information that if

disclosed, would irreparable harm the company. Plaintiff explains that Sophia & Chloe,

Inc. “is a small player in the costume jewelry market. It is privately held, and its

revenues and other financial information are kept confidential.” The financial information includes details on revenue and expenditures that may be subject to improper use by

competitors. Thus, Plaintiff asks the Court to seal Sophie & Chloe’s financial information.

Accordingly the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has made the proper showing

under the compelling reasons standard to warrant sealing. Where the parties show that

the documents contain sources of business information that might harm its competitive

standing, the need for public access to the records is lessened. Nixon v. Warner

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Plaintiff has demonstrated that disclosure of

its financial information may put the information at risk for improper use by competitors. 

Moreover, the information sought to be sealed would not promote “public interest in

understanding the judicial process. . . .” See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

665, 659 (9th Cir. 2010)

As such, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal. The Clerk of Court is instructed

to filed under seal the current sealed lodged proposed documents (Doc. Nos. 43, 44). 

For future filings, the Parties are advised to use a redaction software to ensure complete

confidentiality. 

//

//

//

 The Court’s previous Order denying sealing sets forth the background and legal 1

standards governing motions to seal. (See Doc. No. 51.) 

2 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 53 Filed 04/21/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 21, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

3 12cv2472

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 53 Filed 04/21/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3