Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. v. Gunwerks, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORREY PINES LOGIC, INC., Case No.: 19-cv-02195-H-DEB Plaintiff, Counterdefendant, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S GUNWERKS, LLC, MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS Defendant, Counterclaimant. UNDER SEAL; [Doc. No. 86.]

(2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE THE PROPOSED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND [Doc. No. 87.]

(3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PUBLICLY FILE A REDACTED VERSION OF ITS REPLY On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Torrey Pines Logic, Inc. (“TPL”) filed a motion to dismiss Gunwerks’s amended counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 76.) On October 26, 2020, TPL filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 87.) On October 26, 2020, TPL also filed a motion to file under seal its reply brief and Exhibits D-F to its reply. (Doc. No. 86.) TPL seeks to seal these documents pursuant to the Court’s protective order, (Doc. No. 63), because they contain confidential information. (Doc. No. 86 at 1.) After reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause exists to seal the documents. Accordingly, the Court grants TPL’s request to file the documents under without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order, and the Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents under seal. Nevertheless, the Court notes that with respect to its reply brief, TPL seeks to seal /the entire document. Although the reply contains some sealable information, the entire }document is not sealable. (See Doc. No. 87.) Thus, TPL’s sealing request is not narrowly /tailored. See Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (“Any order /sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, (1984))). As a result, the Court orders TPL to publicly file a redacted version of its reply brief within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.' DATED: October 26, 2020 | | | ul | | | MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT The Court again advises TPL that when a document is not entirely sealable, a public, redacted version of the document should be concurrently filed along with the motion to seal and the sealed lodgment.