Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph R. Earle, Jr., Barry D. Reagh, William Clayton, Francis T. Dudley, Steven E. Bryant, Upper Street Marketing, Inc. and Project Growth International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 3:22-cv-01914-H-SBC COMMISSION, 10 (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, 11 JOSEPH R. EARLE, JR., WILLIAM v. CLAYTON, AND BARRY D. 12 REAGH’S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS JOSEPH R. EARLE, JR., BARRY D. 13 TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER REAGH, WILLIAM CLAYTON, SEAL; 14 FRANCIS T. DUDLEY, STEVEN E.

BRYANT, UPPER STREET 15 [Doc. Nos. 107, 109.] MARKETING, INC. and PROJECT

16 GROWTH INTERNATIONAL, INC., (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 17 Defendants. FILE THE PROPOSED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND 18

19 [Doc. Nos. 106–106-5, 108–108-5, 110–110-4.] 20

21 (3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO FILE PUBLICLY REDACTED 22 VERSION OF THE DOCUMENTS 23

24 25 On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a 26 motion in limine to admit recorded statements of Defendants Joseph R. Earle, Jr. (“Earle, 27 Jr.”) and Barry D. Reagh (“Reagh”). (Doc. No. 106.) On July 15, 2024, Defendants Earle, 28 Jr., William Clayton, and Reagh (collectively, “Defendants”) filed: (1) an unopposed 1 motion to seal the SEC’s motion in limine and related documents (Doc. Nos. 106–106-5); 2 and (2) an unopposed motion to seal Defendants’ opposition to the SEC’s motion in limine 3 (Doc. No. 110–110-4). (Doc. Nos. 107, 109.) Defendants argue that the documents at 4 issue should be sealed because they contain confidential intercepted communications and 5 failure to seal these documents would violate Defendants’ rights to privacy. (See Doc. 6 No. 107 at 5; Doc. No. 109 at 3.) 7 After reviewing the documents at issue, the Court concludes that compelling reasons 8 exist to seal the documents. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 9 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-CV-2330-AJB-DHB, 2015 10 WL 12564223, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015); Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14- 11 CV-02129-MMA (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). 12 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed requests to file the documents under 13 seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the 14 information in a written order. The Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents 15 under seal. (Doc. Nos. 106–106-5, 108–108-5, 110–110-4.) 16 Although the Court grants Defendants’ motions to file the documents at issue under 17 seal, the Court notes that many of Defendants’ sealing requests are not narrowly tailored 18 to only seal the confidential information at issue. For example, the first page of the SEC’s 19 motion in limine is a cover page that contains no sealable information. (See Doc. No. 106 20 at 1.) “Requests to seal must be narrowly tailored.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. 21 Surf Designs, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01118-BEN-BLM, 2018 WL 3055938, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 22 June 14, 2018); see Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV-00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 23 2662311, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) (“‘[A]ny order sealing documents should be 24 “narrowly tailored”’ to serve those compelling reasons.” (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 25 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016))). Unless the moving party can demonstrate that the 26 entire document at issue contains sealable information, in order for a sealing request to be 27 narrowly tailored, the moving party must publicly file a redacted version of the document 28 along with the sealed version of the document. 1 As such, the Court orders the parties to publicly file redacted versions of the SEC’s 2 ||motion in limine and related documents (Doc. Nos. 106—-106-5), and Defendants’ 3 || opposition to the SEC’s motion in limine (Doc. No. 110—110-4). To the extent necessary, 4 ||the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary redactions. The 5 || publicly filed redacted versions of the documents must be filed within seven (7) days from 6 || the date this order is filed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: July 19, 2024 | | | ul | | | 9 MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28