Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

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

SAN DIEGO COMIC CONVENTION, a 

California non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, a Utah 

limited liability company; DANIEL 

FARR, an individual; and BRYAN 

BRANDENBURG, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING BOTH 

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Doc. Nos. 278, 284 )

Presently before the Court are both Plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention 

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg’s 

(“Defendants”) motion to file documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 278, 284.) As explained 

more fully below, the Court GRANTS both motions. 

Courts have historically recognized 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 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 291 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

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

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the 

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).

“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.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 

related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good 

cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

Defendants seek to seal their amended memorandum of points and authorities in 

support of their ex parte motion for reconsideration as the motion contains confidentiality

designations pursuant to the protective order. (Doc. No. 278 at 2.) Plaintiff requests that 

the Court seal its opposition to Defendants’ ex parte application as it discloses confidential 

financial information of the parties and has also been designated confidential under the 

protective order. (Doc. No. 284 at 1–2.)

After a careful review of the documents, the Court finds both parties’ motions to seal 

warranted. First, the Court notes that case law makes clear that documents that were given 

protective designations under a protective order are already determined to satisfy the “good 

cause” standard as they are meant “to protect [the] information from being disclosed to the 

public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips 

v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, compelling 

reasons exist to seal the documents as they contain private financial records of both parties,

as well as refer to the expert reports of Clarke B. Nelson and Patrick F. Kennedy, 

documents already sealed by this Court. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 

1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (the court may ensure its 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 291 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA)

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

records are not used as “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing”). 

Based on the foregoing, finding that the parties’ desire to keep the documents 

confidential outweighs the public’s need for access to the ex parte application and 

opposition, the Court GRANTS both parties’ motions to seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 291 Filed 10/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3