Lee v. Barco Uniforms, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:16-cv-01805
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., No. No. 2:16-cv-01805-DC-JDP TONI S. LEE, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF UNITED v. STATES’ REQUEST TO SEAL 14 BARCO UNIFORMS, INC., et al., (Doc. No. 63) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff United States filed a request to file under seal its unredacted 18 complaint-in-intervention and file publicly a redacted version of its complaint-in-intervention. 19 (Doc. No. 63.) 20 Plaintiff United States asserts that redaction is required because the allegations in its 21 complaint “details specific proprietary information for Defendant Barco Uniforms, Inc. 22 (“Barco”), other Defendants, and third-party suppliers whom the United States does not allege 23 participated in the fraud.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff United States requests that the court permit filing a 24 redacted version of its complaint “[t]o avoid publicly revealing proprietary information or trade 25 secrets of Barco or its customers or non-defendant suppliers, the United States seeks to redact 26 their identifying information including trademarks, logos, and other proprietary information 27 including pricing” and proprietary “fabric blends.” (Id.) 28 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 1 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 2 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 3 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents, such 4 as a complaint and exhibits thereto, where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support 5 maintaining secrecy of those documents. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 6 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 7 2016) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to motions that are “more than tangentially 8 related to the merits”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. S. Glazers Wine & Spirits, LLC, No. 8:24-cv- 9 02684-FWS-ADS, 2025 WL 819070, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2025) (applying “compelling 10 reasons” standard to a request to seal the complaint and explaining that “because a complaint is 11 ‘the foundation of a lawsuit,’ the court concludes that it is more than ‘tangentially related to 12 merits’ of the case”) (citation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify 13 sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper 14 purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 15 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 16 Here, the court finds Plaintiff United States has shown compelling reasons exist to grant 17 its request to seal given proprietary information contained in its complaint-in-intervention and 18 exhibits attached thereto. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing 19 the district court’s denial of a request to seal an exhibit that contained “the pricing terms, royalty 20 rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms,” because that “information [] plainly falls within 21 the definition of “trade secrets.’”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Kroger Co., No. 3:24-cv-00347-AN, 22 2024 WL 1526504, at *2 (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2024) (granting request to seal portions of a complaint 23 that “contain[ed] information related to pricing, promotional strategies, business operations, and 24 labor negotiation strategies” because “protection against disclosure of ‘sources of business 25 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’ is a compelling reason that justifies 26 sealing”) (citation omitted). In addition, the court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds 27 them to be narrowly tailored to protect the proprietary information from public disclosure. The 28 court will therefore grant Plaintiff United States’ request to seal. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. Plaintiff United States’ request to seal (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED; 3 2. Within seven (7) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff United States shall file 4 a redacted version of its complaint-in-intervention; and 5 3, Within seven (7) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff United States shall also 6 email a PDF copy of the unredacted complaint-in-intervention to 7 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket in this 8 case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 11 | Dated: _ April 10, 2025 RVI cs Dena Coggins 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28