Ameranth, Inc. v. ChowNow, Inc.

Opinion

AMERANTH, INC., a Delaware ) Case No.: 3:20-cv-02167-BEN-BLM corporation, ) ) ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART: Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) (1) P DL OA CI UN MTI EF NF T’S S M UNO DT EIO RN SS E T AO L F anIL dE CHOWNOW, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, (2) DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ) FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Defendant. ) ) [ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21] CHOWNOW, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, ) Counterclaimants, ) v. ) ) AMERANTH, INC., a Delaware ) corporation; ) ) Counterdefendants. )

) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Ameranth, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for breach of a patent licensing agreement against Defendant/Cross- Complainant ChowNow, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 12-1 at 6:3-4. Before the Court are the following Motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal, ECF No. 13, and (2) Defendant’s Motions to File Documents Under Seal, ECF Nos. 15, 20. “Open, public courts stand as a pillar of American democracy, to which motions to seal stand in derogation.” Kivett v. Neolpharma, Inc., No. 2:20-00664-JDW, 2021 WL 1209844, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2021). However, “all too often, parties pay little attention to a motion to seal that accompanies a complicated filing.” Id. Instead, sealing motions often include “only generalized recitations of the factors that a court must consider before placing material under seal.” Id. Alternatively, the redactions made may be overly broad, thereby limiting information appropriate for public record in a case. “Given the important public interest at stake,” courts should neither permit parties seal dockets without an adequate showing of injury, id., nor prevent information from being disclosed to the public where the parties did not narrowly tailor their request. Thus, the Court GRANTS- IN-PART both motions according to the terms set forth in the conclusion of this order. This matter arises from Plaintiff’s ownership of several patents, which Plaintiff licensed to Defendant. See generally ECF No. 1. Defendant eventually ceased paying royalties to Plaintiff on the basis that the patents underlying the licensing agreement had been declared invalid, and as such, Defendant no longer owed royalties. Id. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s failure to continue paying royalties constitutes a breach of the agreements between the parties. Id. On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed a Motion to (1) Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims for (a) Failure to State a Claim for Relief and (b) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and (2) Remand to State Court. Mot., ECF No. 12. That same day, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to File Documents Under Seal in support of the Motion, ECF No. 13, lodging the documents it sought to seal as ECF No. 14. On November 20, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Seal, seeking to seal portions of its exhibits to the Notice of Removal, ECF No. 15, lodging the documents it sought to seal as ECF No. 16. On December 7, 2020, Defendant filed amended counterclaims, containing the same claims for relief as its cross-complaint filed in the superior court but adding eight additional claims for relief for (1) declaration of invalidity as to the 9,747,651 Patent (the “651 Patent”); (2) unenforceability of the 8,146,077 Patent (the “077 Patent”); (3) declaration of unenforceability of the 9,009,060 Patent (the “060 Patent”); (4) declaration of unenforceability of the 9,747,651 Patent (the “651 Patent”); (5) bad faith enforcement of patents, 15 U.S.C. § 2; (6) bad faith enforcement of patents through a pattern of sham litigation, 15 U.S.C. § 2; (7) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and (8) unjust enrichment. ECF No. 18. That same day, Defendant also filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 19, along with a Motion to File Documents Under Seal in support of the Opposition as well as documents related to its Amended Counterclaims, ECF No. 20, lodging the documents it sought to seal as ECF No. 21. On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed its reply to Defendant’s opposition. ECF No. 24. Due to the number of motions to seal and exhibits thereto, they are summarized as follows: Sealed Request to Seal Portions of: ECF Doc. Filing Party No. ECF Ex. Description No. Original License Agreement entered into between 1 Ameranth and ChowNow on June 22, 2012 First Amended License Agreement entered into 2 between Ameranth and ChowNow on December 20, 13 Plaintiff 14 2013 First Amended License Agreement entered into 5 between Ameranth and Splick-It on November 19, 2013 First Amended License Agreement entered into 1 between Ameranth and ChowNow on December 20, 15 Defendant 16 2013 Original License Agreement entered into between 12 Ameranth and ChowNow on June 22, 2012 EA-mmearialn ctohr reexsepcountidveensc aen bde tthweeier nr eCspheocwtiNveo wle gaanld 17 counsel, dated October 11, 2018 through July 31, 2020 N/a Cross-Complaint First Amended License Agreement entered into 1 between Ameranth and ChowNow on December 20, 2013 20 Defendant 21 Original License Agreement entered into between 12 Ameranth and ChowNow on June 22, 2012 N/a Amended Counterclaims N/a Opposition Brief III. LEGAL STANDARD Except for certain documents “traditionally kept secret,” federal courts begin a sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then must “articulate [] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” id., that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the “public interest in understanding the judicial process,” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court “conscientiously balance[s] . . . the competing interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After considering these interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it “base[s] its decision on a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434; see also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying compelling reasons standard to dispositive motions). A party must satisfy the compelling reasons standard even if the motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he presumption of access is not rebutted where . . . documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”). A party’s failure to meet the burden of articulating specific facts showing a “compelling reason” means that the “default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. In ruling on motions to seal, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Similarly, other “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” may also constitute a compelling reason to seal, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), such as a company’s confidential profit, cost, and pricing information, which if publicly disclosed could put the company at a competitive disadvantage, see Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[I]t seems clear that if Apple’s and Samsung’s suppliers have access to their profit, cost, and margin data, it could give the suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations, which they could use to extract price increases for components.”). “It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (footnotes omitted). The main reason for this general right is to accommodate “the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of . . . government.” Id. at 598. However, “the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” Id. at 589. “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private spite or promote public scandal,” or to serve as a source of “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “Even where records do not include trade secrets, they may still be sealed where they could be a “source[ ] of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” See, e.g., Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. EDCV181882-JGB- SHKX, 2019 WL 3099711, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2019) (granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file portions of exhibit under seal where the information sought to be sealed fell into two categories: “(1) non-public financial information of Monster and third- parties and (2) non-public strategic and business-making information of Monster and third- parties.”) (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. Cir. 2016). Other courts have held that non-public financial, pricing, and strategy information could harm a litigant’s competitive standing when deciding to grant motions to seal such information. See, e.g., Rodman v. Safeway Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2015 WL 13673842, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015) (granting the defendant’s “narrowly tailored” request to seal “internal, nonpublic information discussing Safeway’s pricing strategy, business decision-making, customer research, and financial records, which would expose Safeway to competitive harm if disclosed”); SteppeChange LLC v. VEON Ltd., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1045-46 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (granting motion to seal documents containing nonpublic pricing terms, private bank account information, and the personal identification information of parties and nonparties). The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., concluded that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to seal product-specific financial information because the parties “could suffer competitive harm if this information is made public” because their “suppliers could have access to their profit, cost, and margin data,” which would “give the suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations, which they could use to extract price increases for components.” 727 F.3d at 1225. As a result, the court held that the parties had “a significant interest in preventing the release of their detailed financial information.” Id. The court noted that even the Supreme Court has indicated that “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” may be sealed. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Here, the portions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits sought to be sealed contain, reference, or discuss confidential, nonpublic information regarding Plaintiff’s licensing agreements with Defendant and other parties as well as amounts Defendant paid as royalties under those agreements. The Court notes that authority exists for sealing a majority of the records at issue, and each party’s respective motion(s) to seal are unopposed. For instance, the Ninth Circuit has held that compelling reasons exist to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms found in [a] Licensing Agreement.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). However, “[a]ny order sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 513 (1984)). Here, the Court finds that while each exhibit the parties seek to seal contains some information appropriate for sealing, each exhibit does not qualify as narrowly tailored. Thus, the Court has considered each of the documents the parties designated for sealing, and as articulated in the table below, determines which documents may remain under seal or redacted and which documents must be unsealed: A. Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (ECF No. 13), which seeks to seal the documents filed under seal in ECF No. 14, is GRANTED-IN-PART as follows: Request to Seal Portions of: Basis: Result: Ex. Description Original License Plaintiff argues that Exhibits 1 GRANTED-IN-PART. Agreement entered and 2 “are confidential patent Compelling reasons exist into between license agreements pursuant to to seal “pricing terms, 1 Ameranth and which Ameranth granted a royalty rates, and ChowNow on June license to Defendant and Cross- guaranteed minimum 22, 2012 Plaintiff ChowNow in exchange payment terms found in for ChowNow’s obligation to [a] Licensing pay certain quarterly royalties to Agreement.” In re Elec. First Amended Ameranth based on ChowNow’s Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x License Agreement product deployments and at 569. As such, the entered into 2 commercial activities in certain Court agrees these between Ameranth fields of use.” ECF No. 13 at licensing agreements are and ChowNow on 2:15-19. Plaintiff contends that information appropriate December 20, 2013 if the licensing agreements are for sealing. However, the disclosed, “other potential Parties have redacted the leixciesntisnege sl iocfe nthsee epsa otefn tthse, opra toetnhtesr, eAngtrireeetmy eonf tt,h we hLiciche niss ein might use the information to try no way narrowly tailored to force Ameranth to provide with the exception of the similar or better licensing rates to introductory paragraph them.” Id. at 3:21-24. listing the parties, some Additionally, “[c]ompetitors of section numbers and the licensees might be able to headings, and the undercut the licensees’ operating signature page. After costs if they obtain information reviewing the actual about the rates the licensees are agreements, the redaction obligated to pay in connection is unquestionably overly with certain types of broad. For instance, transactions.” Id. at 3:24-26. Section 7.2.1 states that “ChowNow is a limited Plaintiff argues that “Exhibit 5 is liability company duly a confidential patent license organized, validly agreement pursuant to which existing and in good Ameranth granted a license to standing under the laws non-party Splick-It, Inc. of California.” See ECF (“Splick-It”) to use and practice No. 14 at 8. This is public Ameranth patents in exchange information and is for Splick-It’s full and timely inappropriate for payment of all amounts due to redaction. As another Ameranth under the agreement.” non-exhaustive example First Amended ECF No. 13 at 2:19-22. Plaintiff Sections 8.2, 9.1, 9.2.1, License Agreement asserts that “[e]ach license 9.5-9.14 contain standard entered into 5 agreement contains confidential contract provisions such between Ameranth and sensitive pricing information as a severability and Splick-It on and use provisions that, if provision, survival November 19, 2013 publicly disclosed, could be clause, and notice harmful to Ameranth, provision. These are not ChowNow, and/or Splick-it or confidential business put them at a competitive information or private disadvantage.” ECF No. 13 at subject to protection or 2:22-25. Plaintiff also notes that appropriate for sealing. “[e]ach agreement contains a See Ervine v. Warden, contractual confidentiality 214 F. Supp. 3d at 919. provision.” ECF No. 13 at 2:25- Plaintiff and Defendant 26. are ordered to meet and confer on each of the lfiiclee nas ninegw a vgerreseimone notfs tahned licensing agreements that is appropriately redacted and narrowly tailored. One copy of each of the newly lodged and narrowly tailored licensing agreements shall submitted and filed under seal by the Clerk of the Court. No additional motions to seal need to be submitted with the new lodged documents. B. Defendant’s First Motion to Seal Defendant’s First Motion to Seal (ECF No. 15), which seeks to seal the documents filed under seal in ECF No. 16, is GRANTED-IN-PART as follows: Request to Seal Portions of: Basis: Result: Ex. Description First Amended GRANTED-IN PART. License Agreement The Court has already entered into ordered that this 1 N/a between Ameranth document shall be sealed and ChowNow on in accordance with the December 20, 2013 terms stated above. Original License GRANTED-IN PART. Agreement entered The Court has already 12 into between N/a ordered that this Ameranth and document shall be sealed ChowNow on June in accordance with the 22, 2012 terms stated above. E-mail Defendant argues that “[t]his GRANTED-IN-PART. correspondence correspondence contains highly Again, this request is not 17 between confidential and competitively narrowly tailored. Upon ChowNow and sensitive financial information review, the Court finds Ameranth and settlement discussions that the only information executives and between the Parties and in the e-mails tlhegeiarl rceosupnescetilv, e spproecviifsiicoanlsly o rfe tfheer eLnicceesn sseev eral aapnpdr soeparliiantge ifso rt hree daction dated October 11, Agreements and monetary figures 2018 through July alleged breaches thereof.” ECF Defendant paid Plaintiff. 31, 2020 No. 15 at 4:5-8. Defendant As such, Defendant must elaborates that “[t]hroughout file a new version of this the correspondence, ChowNow exhibit with only the states how much it had paid figures after the $-sign Ameranth through 2018, and disclosing how much Ameranth states how much Defendant paid redacted. ChowNow allegedly owes Ameranth as well as and Ameranth’s basis for those calculations.” Id. at 4:8-10. Further, Defendant argues that “[t]he subject line of many of the emails indicates that the Parties understood those communications to be subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 408.” Id. at 4:10-12. Defendant argues that “[t]he GRANTED-IN-PART. Cross-Complaint itself directly Like many of the other cites to and quotes from requests addressed by Exhibits 1, 12, and 17, and this order, this request is consequently, contains the same also overly broad. protected information as those Although unlike the Exhibits.” Id. at 4:13-14. licensing agreements, Defendant argues that the Defendant has not Cross-Complaint has been redacted the entire redacted rather than withheld in document, the Amended N/a Cross-Complaint its entirety, and as such, the Counterclaims is also request is narrowly tailored. Id. not as narrowly tailored at 6:20-22. as is appropriate. First, the section numbers of the licensing agreement are redacted, see ECF No. 1-4 at 4:8, 12:3, 12:4, 12:6, 19:10, even though the actual section numbers and section hreedaadcintegds ianr es onmote of the licensing agreements. Even if they were redacted in the agreements, the section heading or number is not confidential business information. Second, ECF No. 21 at 11:27-12:3 seeks to seal information as to what was licensed, but it is already publicly disclosed that “[t]he License Agreement explicitly licenses the ’733, ’850, ’325, and the ’077 Patents.” See ECF No. 1-4 at 11:8. Thus, the fact that the License Agreement is for patents is no secret. Third, the parties seek to seal the vast majority of a particular e-mail discussing the Parties’ contentions as to what the patents cover. See ECF No. 1-4 at 19:27, 19:28-20:2, 20:5-11. However, that issue is part of the subject of this lawsuit. Thus, an e-mail discussing those contentions is not appropriate for sealing. Accordingly, ECF No. 1-4 at 19:27, 19:28-20:2, 2ap0p:5ro-1p1ri iast en ofot r sealing. However, the Court does find information regarding certain terms of the licensing agreement appropriate for sealing. See ECF No. 1-4 at 11:25-26.

Defendant shall file a version with only the aforementioned approved redaction within ten (10) days of this order. C. Defendant’s Second Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (ECF No. 20), which seeks to seal the documents filed under seal in ECF No. 21, is GRANTED-IN-PART as follows: Request to Seal Portions of: Basis: Result: Ex. Description First Amended License Agreement entered into GRANTED-IN-PART. 1 N/a between Ameranth The Court has already and ChowNow on ordered that this December 20, 2013 document shall be sealed Original License but only if the parties re- Agreement entered submit a narrowly into between tailored version of the 12 N/a Ameranth and agreements. ChowNow on June 22, 2012 E-mail As stated above, this correspondence request is GRANTED- 17 between ChowNow N/a IN-PART. Again, this and Ameranth request is not narrowly executives and their tailored. Upon review, rceosupnescetli,v de alteegda l tohnel yC ionufrotr mfinadtiso nth iant tthhee October 11, 2018 e-mails appropriate for through July 31, redaction and sealing is 2020 the monetary figures Defendant paid Plaintiff. As such, Defendant must file a new version of this exhibit with only the figures after the $-sign disclosing how much Defendant paid redacted. Defendant argues that “[t]he Like many of the other Amended Counterclaims directly requests addressed by cite to and/or quote from this order, this request is Exhibits 1, 12, and 17, and also overly broad. consequently, contains [sic] the Although unlike the same protected information as licensing agreements, those Exhibits.” Id. at 3:17-18. Defendant has not Defendant argues that the Cross- redacted the entire Complaint has been redacted document, the Amended rather than withheld in its Counterclaims is also entirety, and as such, the request not as narrowly tailored is narrowly tailored. Id. at 6:20- as is appropriate. First, 22. the section numbers of the licensing agreement Amended N/a are redacted, see ECF Counterclaims No. 21 at 4, even though the actual section numbers and section headings are not redacted in some of the licensing agreements. Even if they were redacted in the agreements, the section heading or number is not confidential business information. Second, Defendant rthede apcattse innt cneurmtabine rasr tehaast are the subject of the licensing agreements, see ECF No. 21 at 44:27, even though in other areas those same patent numbers are not redacted, and thus, are already publicly available, see ECF No. 21 at 11:25. Further, the simple term “Fields of Use” is redacted throughout the Amended Counterclaims. This term has no grounds for sealing. Third, ECF No. 21 at 11:27-12:3 seeks to seal information as to what was licensed, but it is already publicly disclosed that Plaintiff owns patents and “has forced countless companies into patent license agreements.” See ECF No. 21 at 3:21-23. Thus, the fact that the License Agreement is for patents is no secret. Fourth, the parties seek to seal the vast majority of a particular e-mail discussing the Parties’ contentions as to what the patents cover. However, that issue is plaawrts oufit t. h Te hsuusb,j eacnt eo-fm thaiisl discussing those contentions is not appropriate for sealing. Accordingly, ECF No. 21 at 20:25-21:9, and 21:11-12 is not appropriate for sealing. However, the Court does find the following information appropriate for sealing: (1) information regarding certain terms of the licensing agreement, see ECF No. 21 at 12:14-15; (2) how much Defendant paid Plaintiff in royalties, see id. at 21:10-11, 52:24; and (3) the definition of the term “Fields of Use” (rather than just simple reference to the term), see id. at 47:24-48:6. Defendant argues that “[t]he GRANTED-IN-PART. Opposition Brief directly cites to Again, this request and quotes from Exhibits 1, 12, includes significant and 17, and consequently, material that either is not contains the same protected confidential information information as those Exhibits.” subject to sealing or is Id. at 3:19-20. Defendant argues already public record. N/a Opposition Brief that the Cross-Complaint has For instance, the patent been redacted rather than numbers, term “Fields of withheld in its entirety, and as Use,” and section such, the request is narrowly numbers of the various tailored. Id. at 6:20-22. licensing agreements is not information that warrants sealing. See, eN.go.., 1O9p apto 8s:i1ti1o-n1,2 E, C8:F1 5, 8:20, 8:21, 9:10, 14:20, 14:24, 14:28, 18:25, 18:28, 20:12, 23:1. Further, discussion of the contentions and arguments being advanced in this case is not appropriate for sealing. See id. at 9:12- 14, 9:17-26, 17:5-6, 17:7-9, 19:1-11, 20:12- 14. However, the Court finds the following information appropriate for sealing: (1) the substantive terms in the licensing agreements that may not be a standard term, and as such, could be prejudicial if they became public information, see Opposition, ECF No. 19 at 8:19-20, 14:21-23, 19:26-28, and (2) the amounts Defendant paid Plaintiff, see id. at 9:27- 28. Parties frequently file motions to seal as an afterthought “as they wrap up a big filing.” Kivett, 2021 WL 1209844 at *2. However, “[a]ny party seeking to file material under seal must pay careful attention and make a specific, detailed showing about the harm that would result from disclosure.” Id. More importantly, even where a document contains some information appropriate for sealing, a party may not seal the entire document and must narrowly tailor that party’s request by only redacting the information appropriate for sealing. In this case, the requests at issue were not narrowly tailored. Thus, the Court rules the motions as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED-IN-PART as follows: a. Redacted versions of the documents Plaintiff seeks to seal have been filed on the public docket. However, these redactions are overly broad. As such, Plaintiff is directed to lodge under seal a new version of each exhibit it seeks to seal with more narrowly tailored and limited redactions according to the Court’s direction. 2. Defendant’s First Motion to Seal (ECF No. 15) and Second Motion to Seal (ECF No. 20) are GRANTED-IN-PART as follows: a. Redacted versions of the documents Defendant seeks to seal have been on the public docket. However, these redactions are overly broad. As such, Defendant is directed to lodge under seal a new version of each exhibit it seeks to seal with more narrowly tailored and limited redactions according to the Court’s direction. 3. Both parties shall re-lodge under seal the documents they wish to have sealed within ten (10) days of this order. At that time, the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the documents under seal in accordance with this order. 4. For the duration of this case, both parties are prohibited from filing further motions to seal that seek to seal documents the Court has already ordered sealed. Instead, /in future briefing, any further any citation to or reliance on documents the Court has previously ordered sealed shall refer back to the ECF number and page number of the previously sealed exhibit or document. IT IS SO ORDERED. "

DATED: August 18, 2021 95 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge -17-