The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No.: 22cv1694 DMS(MDD)
ALEX LEE, INC.; BIG Y FOODS, INC.;
11 BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS, INC.;
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY;
12 FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL
CERTCO, INC.; DOLLAR TREE
13 DISTRIBUTION, INC.; GREENBRIER
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FAMILY
14
DOLLAR STORES, INC.; FAMILY
15 DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC; THE
GOLUB CORPORATION; KMART
16
CORPORATION; K-VA-T FOOD
17 STORES, INC.; MERCHANTS
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; SCHNUCK
18
MARKETS, INC.,
19 Plaintiffs,
20 v.
21 LION CAPITAL LLP; LION CAPITAL
(AMERICAS), INC.; and BIG CATCH
22
CAYMAN LP a/k/a LION/BIG CATCH
23 CAYMAN LP
24 Defendants.
25
26 On October 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present case in this Court. On December
27 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present motion to file their 100-page Complaint under seal.
28 Plaintiffs argue their Complaint should be filed under seal because it “quotes, incorporates,
1 and references” documents designated as “confidential” or “highly confidential” under the
2 Protective Order issued in the related multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) case, In re:
3 Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litig., Case No. 15md2670 DMS (MDD), ECF Nos.
4 173, 194.
5 “Courts have long recognized ‘a general right to inspect and copy public records and
6 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-
7 cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (quoting Nixon v.
8 Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). However, “[t]his right is not
9 absolute. To balance the competing interests of the public’s right of access against
10 litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to file under seal materials related to
11 dispositive motions must provide ‘compelling reasons’ to do so.” Id. (quoting Kamakana
12 v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Under this standard,
13 “a party seeking to seal materials must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
14 factual findings,’ providing the court with ‘articulable facts’ identifying the particular
15 interests favoring secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the ‘strong
16 presumption’ favoring disclosure.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-81). “In
17 general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the materials ‘might
18 have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite, promote
19 public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179).
20 “‘The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,
21 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to
22 seal its records.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Although neither the
23 Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has squarely addressed the issue, courts in [the
24 Northern District of California] making sealing determinations treat a complaint as a
25 dispositive motion.” Id. at *2.
26 Here, as stated above, Plaintiffs rely on the Protective Order issued in the MDL case
27 as the basis for sealing the Complaint. However, although:
28
1 [a] protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the
7 court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents
sealed, ... a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate
3 confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
A determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.
5 || Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital Corp., No. 5:11-cv-03786-PSG, 2013
6 || WL 6576266, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013). Thus, the mere existence of the Protective
7 || Order does not provide compelling reasons for sealing Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The Court
8 || also notes that the Protective Order was issued more than six years ago, and since that time,
9 ||there has a been a public trial against one of the Defendants in that case, Christopher
10 || Lischewski, and large-scale media coverage of the facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims.
11 In light of these factors, Plaintiffs’ have not shown compelling reasons for sealing
12 ||their Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to file their Complaint under seal is
13 || denied.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated: January 6, 2023 » gf, p
16 4 Yn:
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge
M7 United States District Court
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28