Case Name: COMPUTER TASK GROUP, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Krag BROTBY; Security Products International, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-19
Citations: 95 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 01-36006; D.C. No. CV-97-00213-JKS
Parties: COMPUTER TASK GROUP, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Krag BROTBY; Security Products International, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
COMPUTER TASK GROUP, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Krag BROTBY; Security Products International, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 01-36006.
D.C. No. CV-97-00213-JKS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2003.
Decided April 19, 2004.
Valli Goss Fisher, The Fisher Law Firm, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shirley M. Hufstedler, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Craig S. Elkin, West Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before KOZINSKI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. By failing to raise it below, defendant waived the argument that the district court should have applied California law. See Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 509 (9th Cir.1990).
2. Defendant's appeal of the preliminary injunction is moot because the injunction expired in 1997, see American Tunaboat Ass'n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995), and we lack jurisdiction over a claim as to which no relief can be granted, United States v. Geophysical Corp., 732 F.2d 693, 698 (9th Cir.1984).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sealing portions of the proceedings because Brotby signed a confidentiality agreement and his counsel had full access. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).
4. Defendant bears the burden of showing that the district court committed clear error in its damages award. He has failed to carry that burden. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir.2002).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.