Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02231/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

– 1 – 18cv2231

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

SUN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2231-BAS-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL

[ECF No. 6]

v.

PAUL CORBETT,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Sun Distributing Company, LLC’s Ex 

Parte Application to File Exhibits Under Seal. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff seeks to file 

under seal Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Declaration of William J. Thomas in Support of 

Sun Distributing’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction. Plaintiff states these exhibits contain trade secret information.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he courts of 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 particular court record 

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 

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

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 

Case 3:18-cv-02231-BAS-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 18cv2231

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

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 

justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to 

meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion 

that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to 

the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 

cause” standard applies. Id.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, 

“[t]he 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. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal

documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon 

consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 

435 U.S. at 599.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), generally, provides the “good cause” 

standard for the purposes of sealing documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

The test applied is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from 

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need 

for confidentiality.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-02231-BAS-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 18cv2231

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

2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). Under Rule 26(c), only “a particularized showing of ‘good 

cause’ . . . is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents.” In 

re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 

(9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a 

“particularized showing” of good cause). “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 

26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

II. ANALYSIS

Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Employment Agreement between Plaintiff and 

Defendant. Plaintiff claims the agreement “contains terms and conditions of 

employment, including compensation and benefit information, which are 

confidential and proprietary and not generally available to the public.” (ECF No. 6, 

at 2.) Exhibit 4 is an email from a customer to Mr. Thomas. The email “contains 

information identifying Sun Distributing’s confidential and proprietary information 

and trade secrets related to the identity of its customer, the key contact personnel at 

the customer, as well as the customer’s specific requirements and pricing structures.” 

(Id. at 3.)

The two exhibits contain non-public information which Plaintiff considers to 

be trade secrets. Plaintiff has provided redacted versions of the exhibits, and the 

majority of the exhibits remain public. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s requests and the 

documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff provides compelling reasons to seal portions 

of Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Declaration of Mr. Thomas. The Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 6.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02231-BAS-BGS Document 10 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3