California Beach Co., LLC. v. Du

Background

The plaintiff filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal the entire Supplemental Fourth Declaration of Austin Wright. The declaration supported a motion for an award of damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Legal standard

The court explained that Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires a sealing request to show that the document or specific portions are privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected. The request also must be narrowly tailored to seal only material that qualifies for protection. A party must file both a sealed version identifying the proposed sealed portions and a redacted version for the public record.

Because the declaration related to a dispositive motion, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. The court also discussed the public’s general right to inspect judicial records and the distinction between the stricter standard for materials connected to dispositive motions and the “good cause” standard that generally applies to private discovery materials.

Ruling

The court found that the declaration contained some sealable information but that sealing the entire declaration did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. It found no compelling reasons to seal the entire declaration. The court also noted that the declaration discussed revenues, sales history, and profit margins, information similar to material in a previously filed declaration that was not sealed; the earlier declaration expressly stated a loss of $316,991.

Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to seal without prejudice to the plaintiff’s submitting a more narrowly tailored redaction. The plaintiff could resubmit the sealing request within two weeks.