Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd

Background

Moonbug Entertainment Limited and Treasure Studio Inc. were the plaintiffs, and BabyBus Co. Ltd. and BabyBus (Fujian) Network Technology Co. Ltd. were the defendants. The court had previously granted Moonbug’s motion for sanctions in part and temporarily filed that order under seal. The court then directed the parties to meet and discuss which portions could be filed publicly.

BabyBus asked to keep both the sanctions order and the parties’ joint brief under seal. Moonbug opposed the request and argued that both documents should be publicly filed.

Legal standard

For records attached to motions that do not decide the case, a party generally must show “good cause” to keep them sealed. For records connected more directly to the merits, the party must show “compelling reasons” supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in access to court proceedings. The court assumed, without deciding, that the less demanding “good cause” standard applied to the sanctions order.

The sanctions order

The court held that BabyBus failed to show good cause to seal the sanctions order. BabyBus said the order contained confidential information but did not explain why the information was confidential. The court noted that BabyBus did not identify a trade secret or sensitive, nonpublic financial information. Instead, the information concerned trial evidence that had been publicly available because the trial and related pretrial and trial filings were open to the public.

The court also rejected BabyBus’s argument that sealing was needed to prevent Moonbug from making misleading statements about the order or to avoid influencing a possible new-trial jury. BabyBus cited no supporting authority for sealing a court record on that basis. The court further found that BabyBus’s motion violated Civil Local Rule 79-5 because it lacked a supporting explanation or declaration and did not include a narrowly tailored proposed order.

The court therefore denied BabyBus’s request to seal the sanctions order.

The joint brief

The court also held that BabyBus failed to meet the good-cause standard for sealing the joint brief. BabyBus’s stated reasons—that it had a legitimate confidentiality interest, might suffer harm to its standing and reputation, and had no less restrictive alternative—were merely conclusory statements repeating the local rule.

The court rejected BabyBus’s argument that the joint brief should remain sealed because the sanctions order was sealed. The court explained that the order had been sealed only temporarily while the parties discussed what could be filed publicly. The court also found that BabyBus had not acted in good faith during that discussion because it filed the sealing motion without notifying opposing counsel.

BabyBus committed the same procedural violations concerning the joint brief: it did not provide a supporting declaration or a narrowly tailored proposed order. The court denied BabyBus’s motion to seal the joint brief.

Disposition

The court denied BabyBus’s administrative motion to file the sanctions order under seal and denied BabyBus’s administrative motion to file the joint brief under seal. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.