Reflex Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06393
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 REFLEX MEDIA, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-06393-JD

7 Plaintiffs, SECOND ORDER RE SEALING v. 8

9 SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, et al., Defendants. 10

11 12 In this trademark dispute between rival online matchmaking companies, the parties have 13 filed several Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be 14 Sealed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See Dkt. Nos. 117, 121, 125, 130, 133, 135, 140, and 15 142. Only defendant Successful Match filed responses requesting sealing of its designated 16 materials. See Dkt. Nos. 123 & 144. Sealing is granted in part. 17 Because Successful Match asks to seal materials filed in connection with a motion for 18 summary judgment and motions to exclude experts, it must “articulate compelling reasons 19 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 20 policies favoring disclosure.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 21 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th 22 Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also CZ Servs., Inc. v. Express Scripts Holding 23 Co., No. 18-cv-04217-JD, 2020 WL 4519006, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (compelling reasons 24 test applies to Daubert motions filed in connection with summary judgment motion) (citing In re 25 Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012)). 26 Successful Match asks to seal exhibits 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, and 47 to Reflex Media’s 27 motion for summary judgment, on the ground that these documents contain personally identifying 1 sealing, but only as to last names, account numbers, and PII such as email addresses (not email 2 || domains). Reflex Media will file a revised public version of its motion and exhibits with those 3 narrow redactions. 4 Successful Match also asks to seal two expert reports on the ground that they reference 5 confidential financial information about the company that could subject it to competitive harm. 6 || See Dkt. No. 123 at 4-5. It asks to seal an exhibit containing revenues associated with certain of 7 its websites for the same reason. Dkt. No. 144. 8 These requests are denied. The Court previously denied similar sealing requests from the 9 || plaintiff in this case because “conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example do not 10 || explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are insufficient 11 for sealing.” Order re Motions to Seal, No. 20-cv-06393-JD, at 2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2023) (Dkt. 12 No. 85) (quoting DZ Reserve v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 5 13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021)). In a similar manner, Successful Match offers only vague and 14 || conclusory statements to the effect that information has “great value” to the company only if “not 3 15 || known to the public of Defendant’s competitors,” which is attorney ipse dixit unsupported by any 16 actual evidence of concrete harm. Dkt. No. 123 at 5; see Dkt. No. 144 at 2 (similar). That will not 3 17 || do to deny the public’s right of access to the docket. 18 For the remaining sealing motions, and the other provisionally sealed exhibits not 19 substantively addressed in this order, no designating party filed any statement in support of 20 || sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Consequently, the “‘default posture of public access prevails.’” 21 In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). 22 The parties are directed to file by January 23, 2024, revised public versions of all 23 previously sealed motions and exhibits consistent with this order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 16, 2024 26 27 28 JAMES#/ONATO- United fftates District Judge