Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-555-L-NLS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

OPPOSITION

Pending before the Court is Defendants' ex parte application to seal Plaintiff's 

Exhibits 124, 134, 136, 137, 145 and 156, filed in opposition to Defendants' summary 

judgment motion and portions of Plaintiff's opposition memorandum of points and 

authorities. (Doc. no. 87 ("Application").) Plaintiff's previous motion to seal the same 

exhibits, based solely on a protective order, was denied. (See docs. no. 86 (denial without 

prejudice to move to seal portions of exhibits as to which a showing of compelling 

reasons is made).) Because the protective order protects Defendants' interests with regard 

to these exhibits, they filed the pending Application. Plaintiff filed an opposition. For 

the reasons which follow, Defendants' Application is granted in part and denied in part.

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 

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

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). Aside from “grand jury transcripts and 

warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong presumption 

applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a 

judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access 

by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling reasons 

standard applies to all motions except those that are only “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case.” Ctr for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th 

Cir. 2016). Defendants' summary judgment motion is more than tangentially related to 

the merits. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also, e.g., Ctr for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d

at 1098.

To meet its burden, the moving party must make a "particularized showing," 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and, further,

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. 

In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. 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.

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. 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.

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff's Exhibits 124, 136, 137, 145 and 156 are documents which disclose, 

among other things, Defendant Wartsila Defense, Inc.'s ("WDI") revenue, operating 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

expenses and profit margin for various projects, as well as their proposed and negotiated 

pricing on government contracts. Plaintiff's opposition memorandum discloses some of 

the same information. Defendants contend this is not publicly available information, is 

not typically revealed to competitors or customers, and its disclosure might harm WDI's 

competitive standing. They argue the documents should be sealed because a compelling 

reason standard may be met "when a court record might be used . . . 'as sources [sic] of

business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing." Ctr for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

Defendants' underlying contention that this information might harm WDI's 

competitive standing is unsupported. Although the same factual basis asserted in the 

Application is included in the declaration of Defendants' counsel (doc. no. 87-9 ("Smith 

Decl.") at 3-4), it does not appear that the declarant has any personal knowledge of or 

foundation for these assertions. Moreover, the financial information disclosed by the 

exhibits is several years old. Defendants have not shown why this outdated information 

would have any effect on WDI's competitive standing at the present. 

Defendants have not met their burden of overcoming the strong presumption of 

public access by meeting the compelling reasons standard. Their request to seal 

Plaintiff's Exhibits 124, 136, 137, 145 and 156, as well as portions of Plaintiff's 

opposition memorandum is denied.

According to Defendants, the parties agreed to redact Plaintiff's Exhibit 134 for 

relevance, and no sealing order is required as to this exhibit. (Smith Decl. at 3 & Ex. 1.) 

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants' Application in this regard.

Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall re-file its Exhibit 134 (doc. no. 72-36) in accordance with the 

agreed redactions. (See Smith Decl. Ex. 1.)

/ / / / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-555-L-NLS

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

2. In all other respects, Defendants' ex parte application is denied. Plaintiff 

may re-file its Exhibits 124, 136, 137, 145 and 156 in an unredacted form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4