Tan v. Quick Box, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEANNE TAN, Case No.: 20cv1082-LL-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., DENYING IN PART 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE FIRST 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF 17 CHAD BIGGINS, No. 240]; AND

18 Cross Claimant, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 19 v. MOTION TO SEAL [ECF No. 241]

20 LA PURA DEFENDANTS and JOHN [ECF Nos. 240, 241] DOES 1-10, as defined in Plaintiff’s First 21 Amended Complaint,

22 Cross Defendants. 23 24 Before the Court is Plaintiff Leanne Tan’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to Amend 25 the First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) and Motion for Leave to File 26 Documents Under Seal (“Motion to Seal”). ECF Nos. 240 (“Mot. to Amend”), 241 (“Mot. 27 to Seal”). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED IN 28 PART and DENIED IN PART and the Motion to Seal is DENIED. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background 3 On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a putative consumer fraud class action against 4 alleged operators of an online “free trial” scam. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants 5 fraudulently lured her, and other consumers like her, into purchasing a monthly installment 6 of La Pura skin care products by offering “free samples” of the products. See ECF No. 89, 7 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 8–12. Despite assurances Plaintiff would only have 8 to pay the nominal costs of shipping the sample, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants charged 9 her the full price for the product, along with ongoing installment payments. See id. ¶¶ 110– 10 121. 11 Plaintiff filed the action against the La Pura Defendants (except for Rocket 12 Management Group, LLC (“Rocket”) and Kiet Lieu (“Lieu”)), who allegedly operated the 13 deceptive offer; Quick Box, LLC, Quick Holdings, LLC, Stephen Adele, Chad Biggins, 14 and James Martel (the “Quick Box Defendants”), who allegedly facilitated the offer 15 through fulfillment services and other services; and Konnektive Corporation, Martorano 16 Holdings, LLC, Konnektive Rewards, LLC, Matthew Martorano, and Katheryn Martorano 17 (the “Konnektive Defendants”), who allegedly facilitated the offer through the provision 18 of software and other services. See id. ¶¶ 14–89. 19 B. Procedural Background 20 On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the FAC. See FAC. Each of the defendants moved 21 to dismiss the FAC, and on April 7, 2021, the Court denied each of their motions in 22 significant part. See ECF Nos. 94, 98, 99, 130. The La Pura Defendants (except Rocket and 23 Lieu), Quick Box Defendants, and Konnektive Defendants filed answers to the FAC. ECF 24 Nos. 131, 137–141, 145, 147–149. The Quick Box Defendants and the Konnektive 25 Defendants also asserted crossclaims and third-party claims against the La Pura Defendants 26 (including Rocket and Lieu). ECF Nos. 136–142, 145, 147–149. The La Pura Defendants 27 filed answers to the crossclaims and third-party claims. ECF Nos. 170–171, 175–184. 28 1 On June 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a scheduling order, 2 setting a deadline of August 30, 2021 to amend pleadings or join other parties. See ECF 3 No. 177. The scheduling order also set deadlines for class certification and fact discovery. 4 See id. Per a joint stipulation by the parties, the deadline to file any motion to amend 5 pleadings or join other parties was extended to November 1, 2021. ECF No. 188. The 6 Parties then entered discovery.1 7 On October 29, 2021, the case was stayed pending relief of an automatic stay 8 imposed in a related bankruptcy action. ECF No. 194. On March 21, 2022, the stay was 9 lifted. ECF No. 200. Shortly thereafter, Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a new 10 scheduling order resetting the date for all discovery related to the motion for class 11 certification to be completed by September 16, 2022, and for the motion for class 12 certification to be filed by October 14, 2022. See ECF No. 213. The scheduling order, 13 however, did not reset the deadline to amend pleadings or join other parties. See id. 14 Discovery resumed, and the Court observes that the discovery phase of this litigation 15 has been somewhat contentious with both sides filing several discovery-related motions.2 16 See Mot. to Amend at 7–19 (Plaintiff details several discovery disputes between the 17 parties); see generally Oppo. 18 On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. ECF No. 229. 19 On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend, including the proposed 20

21 1 During this time, Plaintiff first issued a notice for the deposition of Lieu on July 16, 2021. 22 See ECF No. 249-1, Ex. 1. Lieu’s deposition ultimately commenced on May 31, 2022 and 23 continued on July 14, 2022. See id. at Exs. 2, 3.

24 2 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of confidentiality agreements or non- 25 disclosure agreements on November 25, 2022. ECF No. 250. In addition, on January 4, 2023, the Konnektive Defendants moved for evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff, 26 reporting that Plaintiff had spoliated her cell phone. See ECF No. 254. The Quick Box 27 Defendants joined the Konnektive Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 255. Plaintiff also recently moved for terminating sanctions against the Quick Box Defendants and moved to 28 1 and red-lined Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), seeking permission to add additional 2 parties Lieu, Phong Ngo (“Ngo”), Marc Evans (“Evans”), and Rocket as defendants, and 3 “reflect a post-suit name change by Konnektive Corporation to Converging Resources 4 Corporation.” See Mot. to Amend at 5. 5 In response to the filing of the Motion to Amend, the Quick Box Defendants and 6 Konnective Defendants (collectively “Defendants”) filed an ex parte application to extend 7 the Court’s class certification briefing schedule pending the resolution of the Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Amend. See ECF No. 244. On November 23, 2022, the Court granted the ex 9 parte application to set the class certification briefing schedule after the Court rules on 10 Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Amend. See ECF No. 248. On the same day, Defendants filed 11 an Opposition (“Opposition”) to the Motion to Amend. ECF No. 249. Plaintiff filed a Reply 12 (“Reply”) to the Motion to Amend on December 1, 2022. ECF No. 251. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 If a scheduling order's deadline for amendment to the pleadings has passed, a party 15 seeking leave to amend must first satisfy the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 17 cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” is a non- 18 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 19 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 16(b) “primarily considers the diligence of the party 20 seeking the amendment.” In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 21 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “[T]he focus of the Rule 16(b) inquiry is 22 upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification . . . if that party was not diligent, 23 the inquiry should end.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 If the moving party successfully shows good cause exists under Rule 16, the moving 25 party must next demonstrate the amendment is proper under Rule 15(a). Under Rule 15(a), 26 when the time has passed for amendment as a matter of course, “a party may amend its 27 pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 15(a). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Ninth 1 Circuit has stated that “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser 2 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “Five 3 factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad 4 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the 5 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 6 (9th Cir. 2004). However, of these considerations, “it is the consideration of prejudice to 7 the [non-moving] party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 8 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 9 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 III. ANALYSIS 11 A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint 12 Plaintiff seeks leave to file a SAC for the following purposes: (1) to add Kiet Lieu, 13 Phong Ngo (a.k.a. “Punky” Ngo), Marc Evans, and Rocket Management Group, LLC as 14 defendants to this action; and (2) to reflect a post-suit name change by “Konnektive 15 Corporation” to “Converging Resources Corporation.” See Mot. to Amend at 5. Defendants 16 oppose on the grounds that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are untimely, prejudicial, and 17 futile. See Oppo. at 2–3. The Court addresses each of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments in 18 turn. 19 1. Addition of Lieu, Ngo, Evans, and Rocket as Defendants 20 As an initial matter, the Court determines whether Plaintiff satisfies the “good cause” 21 standard of Rule 16 in seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff contends that the scheduling order 22 deadline for seeking leave to amend never “passed” because a new scheduling order with 23 a deadline for leave to amend was never issued after the stay was lifted. See Mot. to Amend 24 at 20; Reply at 3. 25 On August 23, 2021, the Court issued an amended scheduling order requiring the 26 parties to file any motions to add parties and amend pleadings on or before November 1, 27 2021. See ECF No. 188. The case was then stayed on October 29, 2021. ECF No. 194. 28 After the stay was lifted, the Court issued new scheduling orders further extending the dates 1 for discovery and class certification filing. See ECF Nos. 213, 239. These scheduling 2 orders, however, did not modify the deadline to amend pleadings or join other parties. See 3 generally ECF Nos. 213, 239. Therefore, in Plaintiff’s view, Rule 16 would not apply to 4 her Motion to Amend. 5 The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is still governed by Rule 6 16. Although none of the scheduling orders issued after the stay was lifted addressed the 7 prior deadlines for amending pleadings or joining parties, it appears that none of the parties 8 ever requested a continuance to the scheduling order for the deadline to amend and add 9 parties. See generally Docket. Plaintiff states that the parties discussed modifying the 10 deadline with Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher before this case was transferred to 11 Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner on August 16, 2022, but the docket shows the parties 12 only filed motions requesting modifications of discovery deadlines and class certification 13 motions deadlines. See ECF No. 238 (parties filed a joint motion to modify the class 14 certification schedule on November 1, 2022). Additionally, the action was stayed on 15 October 29, 2021, or three days before the November 1, 2021 deadline to amend pleadings 16 or join parties. See ECF No. 194. Moreover, by the time Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend 17 on November 2022, the stay had already been lifted for eight months. 18 As such, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances and the parties’ frequent 19 filings in this action that the parties’ counsel could have filed a motion to set a new deadline 20 to file motions to add parties or amend pleadings after the stay was lifted and failed to do 21 so. The deadline to amend pleadings or join other parties passed, and Plaintiff’s Motion to 22 Amend was filed after the deadline for amending pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff is 23 required to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16. 24 a. Diligence 25 Rule 16, “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In 26 re Western States, 715 F.3d at 737. Thus, the question is whether Plaintiff was sufficiently 27 diligent in seeking to amend the complaint upon discovering new information. See id. 28 1 Plaintiff argues that she was diligent in filing her amended complaint because the 2 identities of the proposed defendants were previously unknown.3 See Mot. to Amend at 19. 3 According to Plaintiff, Defendants made “highly unusual efforts to hide any and all 4 information from the Plaintiff for as long as possible.” Id. at 21. Defendants counter that 5 Plaintiff was first put on notice of Lieu and Rocket when the Defendants filed their third- 6 party complaints, naming Lieu and Rocket as third-party defendants, on April 21, 2021.4 7 See ECF Nos. 136, 142. 8 The filing of Defendants’ third-party complaints naming Lieu and Rocket as third- 9 party defendants was sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice of the potential defendants’ 10 liabilities. Additionally, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions that “Defendants were doing 11 everything to hide the names of those Does,” Plaintiff first issued a notice for the deposition 12 of Lieu on July 16, 2021. See ECF No. 249-1, Ex. 1. Lieu’s deposition commenced on May 13 31, 2022 and continued on July 14, 2022. Id. at Exs. 2, 3. Therefore, Lieu’s depositions 14 were completed nearly four months before Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend. The Court 15 recognizes that there have been numerous discovery issues in this action and Plaintiff “was 16 17 18 3 Plaintiff also cites frequently to the Court’s prior order in another case, Krause-Pettai et 19 al v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al, in which this Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. See Mot. to Amend at 20–22; see also Krause- 20 Pettai et al v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al, 20-cv-1672-AGS-BLM, ECF No. 51. The 21 motion for leave to amend in Krause-Pettai is distinguishable from the Motion to Amend here in many ways, but specifically, in Krause-Pettai, the plaintiff sought leave to amend 22 to add new class members after learning two class members were unable to participate in 23 the litigation. Although the plaintiff in Krause-Pettai filed leave to amend nearly three months after learning a substitution was needed and after the scheduling order deadline, 24 the amount of time seemed reasonable considering the time required to identify and 25 interview potential class members. Additionally, Krause-Pettai was in a much earlier stage of litigation than the action here, where Plaintiff’s deadlines for class certification and 26 related discovery had already passed before Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend. 27 4 According to the Plaintiff’s proposed SAC, Ngo is allegedly a partner at Rocket, and 28 1 forced to serve four separate notices to ultimately take [Lieu’s] deposition,” but Plaintiff 2 failed to account for the four months between the completion of Lieu’s deposition and the 3 filing of the instant Motion to Amend. See Mot. to Amend at 8. 4 Moreover, Plaintiff indicated that she planned to seek leave to amend to add Rocket 5 and Lieu as defendants in filings as early as May 27, 2022. See ECF No. 211 at 2 (“Plaintiff 6 will be seeking leave to amend and currently expects to add at least Rocket Management 7 Group, LLC and Kiet Lieu as Defendants.”). Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to seek leave to 8 amend until five to six months later on November 4, 2022. The fact that Plaintiff stated she 9 planned to seek leave to amend to add Rocket and Lieu in her filings in May 2022 and did 10 not seek to amend the complaint until November 2022 demonstrates a clear lack of 11 diligence. See Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609 (“Failing to heed clear and repeated 12 signals that not all the necessary parties had been named in the complaint does not 13 constitute diligence.”); see also Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Corp., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 14 (9th Cir. 2002) (the diligence inquiry focuses on the time between the moving party's 15 discovery of facts and its filing of leave to amend). As such, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate 16 her diligence in filing the Motion to Amend. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish “good 17 cause” for modifying the scheduling order deadline under Rule 16. 18 b. Prejudice 19 Plaintiff’s lack of diligence alone is a sufficient basis to deny the Motion to Amend, 20 but the Court also concludes that the proposed amendments would prejudice Defendants. 21 See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 22 Defendants contend that the proposed additional parties were “notably identified by 23 the Quick Box and Konnektive Parties and known to Plaintiff long ago.” Oppo. at 2. 24 Defendants argue that Plaintiff delayed in seeking these additions and if Plaintiff is 25 “allowed to add the allegations regarding other products, Plaintiff will attempt to use them 26 to improperly manipulate the scope of discovery in this case.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff states that 27 Defendants will suffer no prejudice because the Court has the power to alter or decertify 28 1 the class, and because Plaintiff has suffered more than Defendants from discovery disputes. 2 See Mot. to Amend at 9, 21, 27. 3 Granting Plaintiff leave to amend after Plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment 4 would cause prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff had the opportunity to seek leave to amend 5 the complaint prior to filing a motion for class certification. As previously mentioned, 6 Plaintiff stated that she anticipated seeking leave to amend to add Kiet and Rocket in filings 7 as early as May 27, 2022. See ECF No. 211 at 2. This was almost six months before filing 8 the motion for class certification, but it is unclear and unexplained why Plaintiff did not 9 seek leave to amend earlier. 10 Additionally, allowing Plaintiff to amend would reopen discovery and extend the 11 remaining deadlines, including deadlines for class certification, dispositive motions, and 12 trial, to create further delay in a case filed approximately two years ago. See 13 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) 14 (“Allowing [the plaintiff] to advance different legal theories and require proof of different 15 facts at this stage in the litigation would have prejudiced [the defendant].”) (internal 16 quotation marks omitted). Defendants would suffer substantial prejudice if leave to amend 17 were to be granted. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause 18 under Rule 16. 19 Lastly, the Court observes that Defendants consented to “Plaintiff’s filing of an 20 amended pleading that excludes Paragraphs 227-229, 232-247, 875, 921, and 922-929 . . . 21 particularly now that the certification proceedings have been stayed.” Oppo. at 11. As 22 stated above previously, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to 23 amend a complaint with the opposing parties’ written consent and without seeking the 24 Court's leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, because the scheduling order's 25 deadline for amendment to the pleadings has passed, Plaintiff must first show good cause 26 exists under Rule 16 before a court may consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 27 15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to satisfy the good 28 cause standard under Rule 16. As such, the inquiry ends before the Court may consider 1 whether an amended pleading under Rule 15(a) is proper. See Mammoth Recreations, 975 2 F.2d at 609; In re Western States, 715 F.3d at 737. 3 In sum, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to the addition of Lieu, 4 Ngo, Evans, and Rocket as potential defendants in this action. 5 2. Post-Suit Name Change of Konnektive Corporation 6 Next, Plaintiff seeks to file a SAC to reflect a post-suit name change of Defendant 7 “Konnektive Corporation” to “Converging Resources Corporation.”5 Mot. to Amend at 5. 8 Plaintiff alleges that “Konnektive Corporation” is now the prior name of “Converging 9 Resources Corporation.” ECF No. 240-3 ¶ 19. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s 10 request. See generally Oppo. Good cause appearing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to 11 correct Defendant Konnektive Corporation’s name in the action. The Court shall direct the 12 Clerk to reflect the change in Konnektive Corporation’s name to “Converging Resources 13 Corporation” on the docket. Therefore, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 14 as to the post-suit name change of Defendant Konnektive Corporation. 15 B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 16 Lastly, Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal unredacted versions of the Motion to 17 Amend; Exhibits 11-14, 16-20, and 26-28 of the Motion to Amend; and a redlined version 18 of her proposed SAC. See ECF No. 241. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is predicated on the 19 Defendants and third parties’ designation of documents produced during discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the operative protective order in this action. See id. at 2; 21 see also ECF No. 230 at 2. Plaintiff states that she was required to file these documents 22 under seal pursuant to the operative protective order, but that she does not actually want 23 permission to file the Motion to Amend and corresponding documents under seal. ECF No. 24 241. Rather, Plaintiff is seeking relief from the requirements of the protective order such 25

26 27 5 Plaintiff only appears to be requesting the defendant’s name be corrected to a different name. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to the post-suit name 28 1 that these documents may be filed publicly. See generally id. Defendants did not file a 2 response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. See generally Docket. 3 The Court first notes that Plaintiff has filed multiple motions to seal in this action 4 requesting similar relief. See ECF Nos. 230, 258, 264. In the Court’s March 2, 2023 Order, 5 Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner previously denied two of Plaintiff’s motions to seal 6 because Plaintiff did not demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the motions and failed to 7 narrowly tailor her sealing requests. See ECF No. 273. Judge Leshner also noted that 8 Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with full briefing on her motions to seal. See id. at 4. 9 Here, Plaintiff offers the exact same justifications and reasons she provided in her 10 other motions to seal. See ECF Nos. 230, 258, 264. Specifically, as with Plaintiff’s other 11 motions to seal, Plaintiff incorporates by reference a previously filed motion to seal and 12 stated that “for the same reasons articulated in that motion, the materials in this motion as 13 well should not be required to be filed under seal.” See ECF No. 241 at 2 (referring the 14 Court to Plaintiff’s filing of ECF No. 230); see also ECF No. 258 at 2; ECF No. 264 at 2. 15 As previously stated in Judge Leshner’s March 2, 2023 Order, Plaintiff is once again 16 “reminded that in seeking relief from the Court, it is her responsibility to provide the Court 17 with the legal and factual bases in support thereof.” See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.f. 18 Further, the Court finds, again, that the information contained in Plaintiff’s Motion 19 to Amend and its corresponding documents are not subject to sealing under the governing 20 standards of the Ninth Circuit, which require a party seeking to seal a judicial record to 21 bear the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. See Foltz v. State Farm 22 Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The showing required to meet 23 this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is 24 “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 25 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than 26 tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096– 27 98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the 28 “good cause” standard applies. Id. 1 Plaintiff does not satisfy either standard here. “The party asserting good cause bears 2 the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific 3 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 4 227 F.R.D. 304, 307 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “That showing requires specific demonstrations of 5 fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete examples, rather than broad, 6 conclusory allegations of harm.” Id. Here, Plaintiff only generally refers to documents in 7 her sealing request and does not discuss the underlying documents or information in any 8 particularized way. See ECF No. 241 at 2; ECF No. 230 at 2. Plaintiff also fails to offer 9 specific demonstration of fact or concrete examples of the way that disclosure would harm 10 Plaintiff. See ECF No. 241 at 2; ECF No. 230 at 2. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff only cites to the protective order as justification for sealing 12 portions of the Motion for Leave to Amend and its corresponding documents. See generally 13 ECF No. 241; ECF No. 230. However, “[t]he existence of a stipulated protected order is 14 not enough, standing alone, to justify sealing under [even the more permissive] the ‘good 15 cause’ standard.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to the addition of four (4) new defendants, 20 Kiet Lieu, Phong Ngo (a.k.a. “Punky” Ngo), Marc Evans, and Rocket Management Group, 21 LLC, is DENIED; 22 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to the post-suit name change of “Konnektive 23 Corporation” to “Converging Resources Corporation” is GRANTED6; 24

25 6 The filing of a Second Amended Complaint is unnecessary. Plaintiff even states that she 26 refers to the defendant “by its prior name, ‘Konnektive Corporation’ throughout the 27 [proposed] Second Amended Complaint.” See ECF No. 240-3 ¶ 19. The First Amended Complaint will remain the operative complaint in this action, and the Clerk’s Office shall 28 1 3. The Clerk is directed to reflect Defendant Konnektive Corporation’s name 2 change to “Converging Resources Corporation” on the docket; 3 4. Given the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, a new class 4 certification briefing schedule is to follow; 5 5. Plaintiffs Motion to Seal is DENIED; and 6 6. Within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff shall file on the 7 || public docket unredacted copies of ECF Nos. 240, 240-2, and 240-3. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: June 14, 2023 NO 10 Qe | 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 10 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28