Chris Byrd v. John Barbieri, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS BYRD, No. 2:25-cv-03091-DC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL 14 JOHN BARBIERI, et al., (Doc. No. 5) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request to file under seal a confidential information 18 memorandum in support of his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 19 and request for expedited discovery. (Doc. No. 5.) 20 Plaintiff asserts the “[m]emorandum contains information concerning confidential 21 business information, which if publicly disclosed would harm the competitive position of Night 22 Vision [Corporation].” (Doc. No. 5-1 at 2.) More specifically, Plaintiff notes the memorandum 23 contains information relating to Night Vision Corporation’s competitive advantages, pricing 24 model, financial data, customer revenue breakdown, and financial statements. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff 25 asks the court to indefinitely seal the entire memorandum to protect Night Vision Corporation’s 26 confidential and proprietary information from improper disclosure. (Id.) 27 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 28 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 1 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 2 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents, such 3 as exhibits, where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support maintaining secrecy of those 4 documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for 5 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying “compelling 6 reasons” standard to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits”). “In general, 7 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 8 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade 9 secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 10 Here, the court has reviewed the memorandum and finds Plaintiff has shown compelling 11 reasons exist to grant his request to seal, given the proprietary information contained in the 12 memorandum. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing the district 13 court’s denial of a request to seal an exhibit that contained “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and 14 guaranteed minimum payment terms,” because that “information [] plainly falls within the 15 definition of ‘trade secrets.’”); Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC, No. 21-cv- 16 07250-HSG, 2022 WL 4624985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to 17 seal non-public information related to a company’s business model to prevent competitors from 18 obtaining an unfair advantage). The court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request to seal. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. Plaintiff’s request to seal (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED; 21 2. Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s declaration (Doc. No. 4-4) filed in support of his motion 22 for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and request for 23 expedited discovery shall be filed under seal to be accessed only by the court and 24 the parties; and 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Defendants shall email a 2 PDF copy of the unredacted version of the subject documents to 3 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket in this 4 case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 7 | Dated: _ November 6, 2025 Dena Coggins 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28