Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01557/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01557-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

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

SCORPIO MUSIC (BLACK SCORPIO)

S.A. and CAN’T STOP PRODUCTIONS,

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11cv1557 BTM(RBB)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT

EXCERPTS SHOULD NOT BE

v. FILED ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET

VICTOR WILLIS,

Defendant.

VICTOR WILLIS,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

SCORPIO MUSIC (BLACK SCORPIO)

S.A. and CAN’T STOP PRODUCTIONS,

INC., 

Counterclaim-Defendants,

-andHENRI BELOLO,

Additional Counterclaim-Defendant.

1 11CV1557 BTM(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01557-BTM-RBB Document 62 Filed 04/12/13 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

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to file under seal portions of a transcript of a deposition

of Victor Willis taken in another action. Plaintiffs filed the motion because the transcript was

designated “Confidential,” and Plaintiffs want to make sure that they do not violate Mr.

Willis’s rights.

The courts in this country recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Unless a court record falls within the limited

category of records “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access is the

starting point.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006). The strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to discovery

documents attached to dispositive motions. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong

presumption by articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. Foltz

v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). As explained by

the Ninth Circuit:

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such “court files might

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as the use of records to

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or

release trade secrets. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306; accord Valley

Broadcasting Co., 798 F.2d at 1294.

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172. “[T]he common-law right of inspection has bowed before the

power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

However, “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, 447 F.3d at 1172.

Upon review of the deposition transcript excerpts, it is not apparent to the Court why

they must be filed under seal. Therefore the Court, orders Defendant Victor Willis to show

cause why the transcript excerpts should not be filed on the public docket. If Mr. Willis

2 11CV1557 BTM(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01557-BTM-RBB Document 62 Filed 04/12/13 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

believes that there are compelling reasons for filing the transcript excerpts under seal, he

must specify the reasons in a response to this order to show cause. Such response is due

on or before April 17, 2013. Failure to file a response will result in the public filing of the

exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

3 11CV1557 BTM(RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01557-BTM-RBB Document 62 Filed 04/12/13 Page 3 of 3