Iconic Mars Corporation v. Kaotica Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ICONIC MARS CORPORATION, Case No.: 22-cv-0092-CAB-DEB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 13 KAOTICA CORPORATION,

Defendant. 14

15 [DKT. NO. 169] 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant Kaotica Corporation’s (“Kaotica”) unopposed Motion 18 for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (“Motion to Seal”). Dkt. No. 169. Kaotica requests 19 the Court seal its Motion to Compel Financial Discovery and accompanying exhibits 20 because the “Motion [to Compel] contains information designated by Plaintiff Iconic Mars 21 Corporation and sanctioned party, Mr. Stephen Lobbin, as ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 22 COUNSEL ONLY’ under the Protective Order in this case.” Id. at 2. For the reasons 23 discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to 24 Seal. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 There is a “strong presumption” in favor of maintaining public access to court 27 records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 28 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 1 Cir. 2003)). The party seeking to seal judicial records attached to a motion “more than 2 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must establish compelling reasons 3 to overcome this strong presumption. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 4 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). For “sealed materials attached to a discovery 5 motion unrelated to the merits of a case,” the movant needs to only establish good cause. 6 Id. at 1097 (citation omitted). Under the “good cause” standard, the Court may seal 7 materials “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 8 undue burden or expense . . . .” In re Amazon Return Pol’y Litig., No. C23-1372-JNW, 9 2025 WL 1043637, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G)). 10 Under either standard, however, the request to seal “must be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove 11 from the public sphere only material that warrants secrecy.” In re J&J Inv., No. 2:22-cv- 12 0529-GMN-NJK, 2025 WL 783260, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2025) (citations omitted). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Kaotica seeks to seal the entirety of its motion to compel, including the unredacted 15 versions of: (1) Notice of Motion to Compel Financial Discovery (Dkt. No. 170); 16 (2) Motion to Compel Financial Discovery (Dkt. No. 170-1); (3) Declaration of Kathleen 17 R. Geyer in Support of Kaotica’s Motion to Compel Financial Discovery (Dkt. No. 170- 18 2); (4) Objections and Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Limited Discovery (Dkt. No. 19 170-3); (5) Iconic Mars Corporation’s (“Iconic”) US Bank account statement (Dkt. No. 20 170-4); (6) Transcript of Jury Trial – Day 1 (Dkt. No. 170-5); and (7) A Public Record 21 Search of Mr. Lobbin’s Possible Real Estate Holdings (Dkt. No. 170-6). Dkt. No. 169. 22 Kaotica does not address whether compelling reasons or good cause exists to grant 23 its motion. Dkt. No. 169. Rather, it relies only on the parties’ agreement to be bound by a 24 protective order. Id. at 2. A protective order is, however, insufficient to support sealing. 25 This is because “protective orders are overinclusive . . . because prior to signing, the judge 26 typically does not have the opportunity to analyze whether any particular document should 27 be sealed. Therefore, whether a document designated as confidential pursuant to a 28 protective order should be sealed must usually be determined de novo.” In re Packaged 1 Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., No. 15-MD-2670 JLS-MDD, 2021 WL 22576, at *1 (S.D. 2 Cal. Jan. 4, 2021) (citations omitted). 3 The good cause standard applies to the underlying discovery motion Kaotica seeks 4 to seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101 (The “good cause” standard applies 5 where a party seeks to seal judicial records filed in connection with a non-dispositive 6 motion that is not “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.”). The Court finds 7 good cause to seal certain sensitive financial information, specifically Iconic’s US Bank 8 account statement (Dkt. No. 170-4) and the list of Mr. Lobbin’s possible real estate 9 holdings (Dkt. No. 170-6). NML Cap., Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 2:14-cv-492- 10 RFB-VCF, 2015 WL 3489684, at *2 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015) (finding good cause to seal 11 “bank records that contain sensitive financial information, including bank account 12 numbers”).1 13 The Court does not, however, find good cause to seal the motion and accompanying 14 declaration and exhibits in their entirety. In re J&J Inv., 2025 WL 783260, at *2 (“To the 15 extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful 16 information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed 17 rather than sealing entire documents.”) (citation omitted). The sealing order is not narrowly 18 tailored. For example, Kaotica seeks to seal information relating to legal arguments and 19 counsel’s meet and confer efforts. Additionally, some of what Kaotica seeks to seal are 20 publicly available through the docket, including the jury trial transcript. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26

27 1 Although no motion to seal accompanied Iconic’s and Mr. Lobbin’s opposition to Kaotica’s Motion to Compel, the Court finds good cause to sua sponte seal the bank and 28 |) TH. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 3 || Kaotica’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 169) and ORDERS 4 || as follows: 5 1. Kaotica must file a redacted version of the motion to compel and accompanying 6 declaration and exhibits on the public docket within seven days of entry of this 7 Order. 8 2. The redactions must be limited to Iconic Mars Corporation’s US Bank records at ? Dkt. No. 170-4 and the list of Mr. Lobbin’s possible real estate holdings at DKt. 10 No. 170-6. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the documents at Dkt. No. 170 under 12 seal. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal Mr. Lobbin’s financial records attached as 14 Exhibit A to the opposition to the motion to compel at Dkt. No. 172-1. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: May 2, 2025 — 17 odoinn 18 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28