United States v. Get Engineering Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Case No.: 19-cv-1249-RSH-MSB MC2 SABTECH HOLDINGS, INC., 12 d/b/a “IXI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,” ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 FILE UNDER SEAL Plaintiff/Relator, 14 v. [ECF No. 263] 15 GET ENGINEERING CORP. et al., 16

17 Defendants. 18 19 Relator filed a motion to seal various documents. ECF No. 263. Following an Order 20 by this Court directing further submissions [ECF No. 266] the Parties met and conferred, 21 and jointly agreed upon certain redactions to be made to previously filed docket entries. 22 ECF No. 267. 23 The Court has reviewed those redactions and concludes that there is good cause to seal the 24 material identified for redaction, and grants the motion as set forth below. 25 I. DISCUSSION 26 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 27 records and documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept 2 secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City 3 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 4 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 5 To overcome this presumption of access, a party must show either “good cause” or 6 “compelling reasons” to seal a record, depending on the motion to which the record relates. 7 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1097 (9th Cir. 2016). The 8 Ninth Circuit has made it “clear that public access to filed motions and their attachments 9 does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically ‘dispositive.’” Id. at 1101 10 (“[O]ur circuit looks past the literal dispositive/nondispositive label.”). “Rather, public 11 access will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a 12 case.” Id. at 1100. If the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” 13 the movant must show “compelling reasons” for overcoming the presumption in favor of 14 public access. Id. at 1096-99. Otherwise, a party need only show good cause. Id.; see, e.g., 15 Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14-cv-2129-MMA-AGS, 2017 WL 5029612, at *2 (S.D. 16 Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). “[T]he ‘compelling reasons standard applies to most judicial records.’” 17 Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 18 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010)). Here, the motions at issue relate to a post-trial request for 19 fees, as well as a post-trial request for sanctions in connection with the request for fees. 20 The Court concludes that the “good cause” standard applies here. 21 One established basis for sealing records is where court filings “‘might have become 22 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 23 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 24 at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Reviewing the specific redactions agreed upon 25 by the Parties, as well as the redactions that Relator has already made to its motion for 26 27 1 ||sanctions,! the Court concludes that this standard supports permitting such redactions and 2 sealing the unredacted versions of the respective documents. This ruling does not purport 3 || to adjudicate any aspect of Relator’s pending motion for sanctions. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, Relator’s motion to seal [ECF No. 263], is GRANTED. 6 1. The unredacted version of Relator’s motion for sanctions [now lodged at ECF 7 || No. 264] is accepted for filing under seal. The redacted version remains in the public record 8 ||at ECF No. 265. 9 2. The Clerk shall also seal the following documents, currently in the public 10 ||record: ECF Nos. 253, 258, 258-2, 259, and 262-1. 11 3. The Parties are ordered to publicly file, within seven (7) days of this Order, 12 || versions of the aforementioned filings with such redactions as the Parties have agreed to as 13 || indicated in ECF No. 267. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 15 Dated: March 17, 2025 [but ‘ Have 16 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 57 ! Defendants have requested that the entirety of this document be sealed [ECF No. 268], but the Court does not see good cause for doing so. 28