1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL) 12 LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a Delaware limited liability company; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE & TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign SEAL 15 corporation, 16 Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 27) 17 v. 18 REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual, 19 RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California corporation; BAM BY BIG LLC, a 20 California limited liability company; and 21 DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. 22
23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC (“BAM”), 25 Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., and Llorente & Cuenca Madrid S.L.’s (collectively 26 “Plaintiffs”) Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27 27). Plaintiffs accompanied this renewed Motion with redacted versions of the 28 Declarations of Luisa Garcia (ECF No. 27-2), Todd Renner (ECF No. 27-3), and Michael 1 Houston (ECF No. 27-4), each of which Plaintiffs previously filed under seal (collectively, 2 the “Declarations”).1 Defendants Rebecca Bamberger, RBW Holdco Inc., and BAM by 3 BIG LLC (“BIG”) (collectively, “Defendants”) did not oppose the Motion. Having 4 carefully considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 5 Motion. 6 BACKGROUND 7 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Issuance of 8 Temporary Restraining Order, Seizure Order, Order to Show Cause for Preliminary 9 Injunction, Order for Expedited Discovery, and Preservation Order (“Appl.,” ECF No. 5). 10 At that time, Plaintiffs sought to file the entire Application, including the associated Garcia 11 and Renner Declarations, under seal. ECF No. 6 (the “First Seal Mot.”). 12 On April 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Application and 13 the First Seal Motion. See generally ECF No. 7 (the “Order”). As to the First Seal Motion, 14 though select portions of the Application and its exhibits likely merited sealing, large 15 portions of each contained information for which sealing was not justified. Id. at 12. The 16 Court thus informed Plaintiffs that it would allow them to file these documents under seal 17 temporarily, pending a renewed motion identifying compelling reasons to seal only 18 specific, highly sensitive portions.2 Id. at 12–13. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to file 19 proposed redactions to documents that did not merit sealing in their entirety. Id. The 20 instant Motion followed. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 24 25 1 Plaintiffs have refiled unredacted versions of these declarations within a Proposed Lodged Document (“PLD,” ECF Nos. 28 to 28-7). The Court will hereinafter refer to the both the unredacted and redacted 26 versions of each declaration as the “Garcia Declaration,” “Renner Declaration,” and “Houston Declaration,” respectively. 27
28 2 As Plaintiffs have publicly filed redacted versions of the Declarations—and the Court approves of those 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). “Unless a particular court 5 record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 6 starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 7 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 8 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 9 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 10 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. 11 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United 12 States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 13 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong 14 presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The showing required to meet this 15 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 16 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 17 As relevant here, the “compelling reasons” standard typically applies to requests to seal 18 filed alongside motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. See 19 id. at 1099. 20 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 21 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become 22 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 23 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 24 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). For instance, “the common-law right 25 of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to ensure that its records are not 26 used . . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 27 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 28 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 1 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 2 F.3d at 1179. 3 To satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must 4 “present ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . 5 show that these specific interests . . . outweigh[] the ‘public interest in understanding the 6 judicial process.’” Id. at 1181 (citation omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and 7 then quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant 8 must make this required particularized showing for each document it seeks to seal.” Avnet, 9 Inc. v. Avana Techs. Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. 10 Aug. 20, 2014) (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 11 (9th Cir. 1999)). If the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that 12 their compelling interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of 13 said document. See In re Roman Cath, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). If, by contrast, 14 compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the movant must offer 15 compelling reasons to seal each portion they believe should be sealed. See In re Roman 16 Cath., 661 F.3d at 425. 17 The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial 18 court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” 19 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. “[T]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing 20 interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” 21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiffs contend the three at-issue Declarations contain confidential information 24 and trade secrets that warrant sealing. Mot. at 5. To that end, Plaintiffs seek to seal/redact 25 select portions of each Declaration. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL) 12 LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a Delaware limited liability company; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE & TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign SEAL 15 corporation, 16 Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 27) 17 v. 18 REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual, 19 RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California corporation; BAM BY BIG LLC, a 20 California limited liability company; and 21 DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. 22
23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC (“BAM”), 25 Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., and Llorente & Cuenca Madrid S.L.’s (collectively 26 “Plaintiffs”) Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27 27). Plaintiffs accompanied this renewed Motion with redacted versions of the 28 Declarations of Luisa Garcia (ECF No. 27-2), Todd Renner (ECF No. 27-3), and Michael 1 Houston (ECF No. 27-4), each of which Plaintiffs previously filed under seal (collectively, 2 the “Declarations”).1 Defendants Rebecca Bamberger, RBW Holdco Inc., and BAM by 3 BIG LLC (“BIG”) (collectively, “Defendants”) did not oppose the Motion. Having 4 carefully considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 5 Motion. 6 BACKGROUND 7 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Issuance of 8 Temporary Restraining Order, Seizure Order, Order to Show Cause for Preliminary 9 Injunction, Order for Expedited Discovery, and Preservation Order (“Appl.,” ECF No. 5). 10 At that time, Plaintiffs sought to file the entire Application, including the associated Garcia 11 and Renner Declarations, under seal. ECF No. 6 (the “First Seal Mot.”). 12 On April 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Application and 13 the First Seal Motion. See generally ECF No. 7 (the “Order”). As to the First Seal Motion, 14 though select portions of the Application and its exhibits likely merited sealing, large 15 portions of each contained information for which sealing was not justified. Id. at 12. The 16 Court thus informed Plaintiffs that it would allow them to file these documents under seal 17 temporarily, pending a renewed motion identifying compelling reasons to seal only 18 specific, highly sensitive portions.2 Id. at 12–13. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to file 19 proposed redactions to documents that did not merit sealing in their entirety. Id. The 20 instant Motion followed. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 24 25 1 Plaintiffs have refiled unredacted versions of these declarations within a Proposed Lodged Document (“PLD,” ECF Nos. 28 to 28-7). The Court will hereinafter refer to the both the unredacted and redacted 26 versions of each declaration as the “Garcia Declaration,” “Renner Declaration,” and “Houston Declaration,” respectively. 27
28 2 As Plaintiffs have publicly filed redacted versions of the Declarations—and the Court approves of those 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). “Unless a particular court 5 record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 6 starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 7 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 8 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 9 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 10 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. 11 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United 12 States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 13 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong 14 presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The showing required to meet this 15 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 16 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 17 As relevant here, the “compelling reasons” standard typically applies to requests to seal 18 filed alongside motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. See 19 id. at 1099. 20 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 21 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become 22 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 23 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 24 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). For instance, “the common-law right 25 of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to ensure that its records are not 26 used . . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 27 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 28 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 1 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 2 F.3d at 1179. 3 To satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must 4 “present ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . 5 show that these specific interests . . . outweigh[] the ‘public interest in understanding the 6 judicial process.’” Id. at 1181 (citation omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and 7 then quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant 8 must make this required particularized showing for each document it seeks to seal.” Avnet, 9 Inc. v. Avana Techs. Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. 10 Aug. 20, 2014) (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 11 (9th Cir. 1999)). If the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that 12 their compelling interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of 13 said document. See In re Roman Cath, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). If, by contrast, 14 compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the movant must offer 15 compelling reasons to seal each portion they believe should be sealed. See In re Roman 16 Cath., 661 F.3d at 425. 17 The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial 18 court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” 19 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. “[T]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing 20 interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” 21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiffs contend the three at-issue Declarations contain confidential information 24 and trade secrets that warrant sealing. Mot. at 5. To that end, Plaintiffs seek to seal/redact 25 select portions of each Declaration. Id. Per Plaintiffs, the proposed redactions would 26 prevent disclosure of their “business relationships, plans, client lists and contact 27 information, strategies, and trade secrets.” Id. at 10–11. If the Court were to deny their 28 proposed redactions, Plaintiffs argue, their competitors could “exploit that information to 1 obtain a competitive advantage.” Id. 2 Plaintiffs seek to seal three categories of information. See id. at 5, 8–9. These 3 categories include Plaintiffs’ (1) confidential business strategies and related expenses; (2) 4 URLs linking to internal documents; and (3) third-party outreach and client information. 5 The Court will address each category in turn. 6 I. Plaintiffs’ Business Strategies and Expenses 7 Plaintiffs argue Exhibits 7, 9, 10, and 19—and Paragraph 12—of the Garcia 8 Declaration should be sealed/redacted because they reveal Plaintiffs’ confidential business 9 strategies. Mot. at 8. Paragraph 12 provides the “amount LLYC Madrid spent in marketing 10 and advertising the LLYC brand in 2023,” Garcia Decl. ¶ 12; Exhibit 7 contains BAM’s 11 employee handbook, id. Ex. 7; Exhibits 9 and 10 offer board meeting minutes, id. Exs. 9– 12 10; and Exhibit 19 includes a business proposal to a client, id. Ex. 19. Plaintiffs justify 13 their proposed redactions to these portions of the Garcia Declaration as follows: access to 14 this information would allow Plaintiffs’ competitors to profit “from the time and money 15 that BAM expended developing these strategies.” Mot. at 8. 16 The Court concludes compelling reasons exist to redact the above Paragraph and 17 Exhibits because disclosure of the information contained therein could harm Plaintiffs’ 18 competitive standing. See, e.g., San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego LLC, 19 No. 3:22-CV-01145-RBM-DDL, 2024 WL 2059737, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2024) 20 (granting motion to seal litigant’s marketing expenses because competitors might be able 21 to profit from their knowledge of the litigant’s budget); W. Air Charter, Inc. v. Schembari, 22 No. EDCV17420JGBKSX, 2018 WL 10157139, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018) (sealing 23 employee handbook because its development “required the investment of significant 24 resources” and it contained “confidential information related to employee benefits and 25 compensation”); In re BofI Holding, Inc. S’holder Litig., No. 315CV02722GPCKSC, 2017 26 WL 784118, at *20–21 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (granting motion to seal meeting minutes 27 because meeting participants discussed “proprietary business information”); Network 28 Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2010 WL 841274, at *4– 1 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (granting motion to seal business information, marketing 2 information, and “future business plans” because a competitor could benefit from said 3 information). 4 II. BIG’s Google Drive URLs 5 Paragraph 103 of the Garcia Declaration contains “the URL of BIG’s Google drive,” 6 which purportedly contains all of BAM’s business-related information, including its trade 7 secrets. Garcia Decl. ¶ 103. The same is true of Paragraphs 19 and 20(a)–(c) and Exhibits 8 3 and 4 of the Renner Declaration. Renner Decl. ¶¶ 19, 20(a)–(c); id. Exs. 3–4. Plaintiffs 9 contend these references should be redacted because disclosure of the link to BIG’s Google 10 Drive would give BAM’s competitors access to “BAM’s confidential information and trade 11 secrets.” Id. at 11. As, with access to BIG’s drive, BAM’s competitors would be able to 12 unfairly compete with BAM by targeting its clients and mimicking its business strategies, 13 compelling reasons justify redacting these URLs. See, e.g., 3D Sys., Inc. v. Wynne, No. 14 21-CV-1141-AGS-DDL, 2024 WL 1122377, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024) (granting 15 motion to seal/redact URLs and file pathways connected to folders storing confidential 16 information). 17 III. Plaintiffs’ Third-Party Outreach and Client Information 18 Plaintiffs claim Exhibits 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the Garcia Declaration 19 contain sensitive and confidential information relating to BAM’s clients. Mot. at 8–9. 20 Specifically, Exhibits 8, 11, 20, and 21 contain invoices stating client names, addresses, 21 and billing information, Garcia Decl. Exs. 8, 11, 20, 21; Exhibits 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21 22 include emails revealing client names and email addresses, id. Exs. 14, 15, 18, 20, 21; and 23 Exhibit 17 comprises a list of client names, associated contact information, and notes for 24 each client, id. Ex. 17. Plaintiffs also seek to redact similar information in Exhibits 3, 4, 25 and 5 of the Houston Declaration and Exhibits 3 and 4 of the Renner Declaration, Houston 26 Decl. Exs. 3–5; Renner Decl. Exs. 3–4, contending compelling reasons justify the proposed 27 redactions to the above exhibits because, absent redaction, Plaintiffs’ competitors could 28 “mimic its business relationships.” Mot. at 8–9. The Court agrees. See, e.g., Apex.AI, Inc. 1 Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2 2023) 3 CONCLUSION 4 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 5 ||27) and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to file ECF No. 28 under seal. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 24, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- g on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28