ThermoLife International LLC v. American Fitness Wholesalers LLC

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 ThermoLife International LLC, No. CV-18-04189-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 American Fitness Wholesalers LLC,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant American Fitness Wholesalers LLC’s 16 Motion to File Exhibit to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Under Seal (Doc. 37). The exhibit is 17 Defendant’s fee agreement. (Id. at 1). Defendant argues: 18 A1 and its counsel consider this document confidential, at the very least, due to the sensitive nature of attorney-client communications and the scope and 19 terms of counsel’s engagement. The information contained in the fee 20 agreement is not public and is sensitive to both A1 and its counsel. Moreover, there is little if any benefit that the public would glean from this document— 21 certainly not enough to override the policy of maintaining such sensitive 22 legal information in confidence. 23 (Id. at 2). This rationale is not sufficient to overcome “the presumption of public access to 24 court filings.” Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 25 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014); see also Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 26 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right 27 to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 28 documents.’” (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978))). 1 Specifically, the public has a right to know the amount that clients are paying in attorneys’ 2 fees—information that is not privileged. See Linex Techs., Inc., 2014 WL 6901744, at *1. 3 The Court will therefore deny the Motion (Doc. 37). See Linex Techs., Inc., 2014 WL 4 6901744, at *1. 5 District of Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(d)(2) provides, “[a] complete 6 copy of any written fee agreement, or a full recitation of any oral fee agreement, must be 7 attached to the supporting memorandum” when a party seeks attorneys’ fees. LRCiv 8 54.2(d)(2). The Court is, however, sympathetic to the fact that the fee agreement lodged 9 under seal (Doc. 38) contains confidential information that is not required by Local Rule 10 54.2(d)(2). Consquently, the Court will allow Defendant to file a redacted, unsealed, copy 11 of the fee agreement that complies with Local Rule 54.2’s requirements. See Cheeks v. 12 Gen. Dynamics Corp., No. CV-12-01543-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 5465285, at *1, 3 (D. Ariz. 13 Oct. 28, 2014). The Court cautions that failure to comply with Local Rule 54.2 will result 14 in the denial of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 36). Aviva USA Corp. v. 15 Vazirani, No. CV 11-0369-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 4430921, at *7 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2013). 16 If Defendant cannot comply with Local Rule 54.2, it can withdraw the Motion for 17 Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 36). 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to File Exhibit to Motion for Attorneys’ 20 Fees Under Seal (Doc. 37) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall not unseal the associated 21 document that is lodged under seal (Doc. 38) and instead leave said document (Doc. 38) 22 lodged under seal. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant either file a redacted, unsealed, copy 2|| of the fee agreement that conforms with Local Rule 54.2’s requirements or file a notice of its inability to do so by Tuesday, April 7, 2020. 4 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2020. 5

7 James A. Teilborg 3 Senior United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-