DS Advanced Enterprises, LTD. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01335
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DS ADVANCED ENTERPRISES, LTD., Case No.: 23-cv-01335-CAB-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MOTION TO 14 LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., ENFORCE THE PROTECTIVE 15 Defendants. ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS UNDER SEAL 16

17 [ECF Nos. 57, 58] 18 19 Before the Court is a motion filed by Defendant Lowe’s Homes Centers, LLC 20 (“LHC”) to file documents relating to the pending motion to enforce the protective order 21 and for sanctions (“Sanctions Motion”) under seal. (ECF No. 57.) LHC seeks an order 22 sealing: (1) Exhibit A (LHC_000795–812) to the Declaration of Scott D. Stimpson 23 (“Stimpson Decl.”) (ECF No. 59-3), filed in support of LHC’s Sanctions Motion (ECF No. 24 59); (2) Exhibit B to Stimpson Decl. (LHC_000841–887); (3) certain portions of Exhibit C 25 to Stimpson Decl.; and (4) certain portions of LHC’s Memorandum of Law in support of 26 the Sanctions Motion. (ECF No. 57 at 2.) Plaintiff DS Advanced Enterprises, Ltd. 27 (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 70.) 28 /// 1 LHC argues that the documents and information it seeks to seal include non-public 2 financial and competitive information, including diagrams of LHC’s products. (ECF No. 3 57-1 at 2–4.) LHC designated the underlying documents as “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 4 COUNSEL ONLY,” pursuant to the Protective Order issued in this case. (Id. at 3 (citing 5 ECF No. 33).) Plaintiff opposes the motion to the extent it seeks to seal images of 6 Plaintiff’s products, which are covered by Plaintiff’s Patent, US 11,054,118, as they are 7 readily available to Plaintiff and therefore not subject to the Protective Order. (ECF No. 8 70 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff opposes the sealing of the images of Plaintiff’s products 9 from the last page of LHC’s Exhibit A (LHC_000812). (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also suggests 10 that it opposes the sealing of any sales data attributable to purchase orders received by 11 Plaintiff. (Id.) 12 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 13 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,’” which is “justified by 14 the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’” 15 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 16 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7, 598 (1978)). As such, a party 17 seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate[] 18 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that can surmount the “strong 19 presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 However, a different standard applies to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 22 F.3d at 1179. “Non[-]dispositive motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, 23 to the underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing 24 dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos 25 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation 26 marks omitted). “In light of the weaker public interest in non[-]dispositive materials, we 27 apply the ‘good cause’ standard when parties wish to keep them under seal.” Id.; see also 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (stating that for good cause shown, courts may enter an order | || preventing the disclosure of a “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 2 || commercial information’’). 3 Although a discovery-related motion is generally non-dispositive, as LHC seeks 4 || potentially dispositive sanctions, the Court will address both standards. Based on its review 5 the documents, the Court finds that there is good cause for filing the requested 6 documents under seal. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. Moreover, the Court finds compelling 7 reasons for their sealing based on their disclosure of sensitive commercial information. See 8 Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL, 9 1/2024 WL 3610965, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2024).! Accordingly, LHC’s Motion is 10 || GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file all documents lodged at ECF No. 58 11 || under seal. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: January 24, 2025 - 14 i U Burbthenddr n. Jill L. Burkhardt 15 ited States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2oi}o020tti<“i‘< OO! 27 The Court notes that the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo previously ordered that 28 the documents at issue, LHC_000795-—812 and LHC_000841-—887, should be sealed in this case, finding both good cause and compelling reasons. (See ECF Nos. 76, 80.)