KHN Solutions, LLC. v. Rofeer-US

Opinion

1 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4

7 Plaintiff, No. C 20-07414 WHA

8 v.

9 SHENZHEN CITY XUEWU FEIPING ORDER DENYING SEALING TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company; TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., a Chinese 11 Company; SHENZHEN AIMASI ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., a Chinese 12 Company; ROFEER-US, a Chinese Company; ZONGHUI LI, an Individual; TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company; 14 JINMEI GONG, an Individual; CHENGDU CITY XIANG JIN XIN COMMERCIAL & 15 TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese Company; LIANDI CHEN, an Individual; KAI TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese 17 Company; MENGQIAN JIANG, an Individual; HARBANS SINGH PALDA, an 18 Individual; RICHARD GAWEL, an Individual; DONGQING CHEN, an 19 Individual; DEBIAO PANG, an Individual; and DOES 1–50, 20 Defendants. 21

22 23 This order resolves the pending sealing motion (Dkt. No. 111). 24 The motion seeks to seal an exhibit attached to the status update that supplemented and 25 renewed plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (see id. (re Dkt. No. 112)). 26 Specifically, the exhibit at issue is a table containing information about the seller accounts on 27 amazon.com that correspond to defendants and to sales of products related to this case (see 1 This filing is presumptively public, and requires compelling reasons to seal. Kamakana 2 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). That standard applies 3 because the public especially enjoys the right to know to whom and from whom the courts 4 provide relief. See ibid. And, it applies because this information is related to whether 5 defendants are liable, failed to appear for excusable neglect, and other issues more than 6 tangentially related to the merits of the pending motion that seeks to dispose of this action (see 7 Dkt. No. 111-1 (“Ertas Decl.”) § 4; Dkt. No. 108 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 125). Cf Ctr. for Auto 8 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 580 U.S. 815 9 (2016). 10 There are no compelling reasons to seal these records. We are told that Amazon, Inc. 11 “designated portions of the spreadsheet confidential in accordance with the Court’s protective 12 order” (Ertas Decl. § 4). But “confidential categorization of discovery documents under the E 13 protective order was not a guarantee of confidentiality, especially in the event of a court 14 filing.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). The 3 15 instant protective order said as much (Dkt. No. 38 § 12.3). Moreover, our federal rules already 16 acknowledge that the last four digits (or tails) of bank account numbers can be filed without i 17 redaction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(4). The other stuff here, mainly corporate contact Z 18 information, is even more innocuous. And, in this case, the public interests in putting sunlight 19 on alleged false advertising makes especially plain the wisdom of presumptive public access to 20 public court records. Cf Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 21 2000) (Judge Frank Easterbrook) 22 Plaintiff shall re-file the exhibit onto the public docket in conformance with this order by 23 NOON ON MARCH 20, 2025. 25 Dated: March 11, 2025. 26 27 A - Pee LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE