The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, Case No.: 24-CV-706 JLS (DDL)
12 LLC d/b/a BAM COMMUNICATIONS, a
Delaware limited liability company; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
13 LLORENTE & CUENCA USA, INC., a RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE
14 Delaware corporation; and LLORENTE & TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER
CUENCA MADRID S.L., a foreign SEAL
15 corporation,
16 Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 27)
17 v.
18 REBECCA BAMBERGER, an individual,
19 RBW HOLDCO, INC., a California
corporation; BAM BY BIG LLC, a
20 California limited liability company; and
21 DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants.
22
23
24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Rebecca Bamberger Works, LLC (“BAM”),
25 Llorente & Cuenca USA, Inc., and Llorente & Cuenca Madrid S.L.’s (collectively
26 “Plaintiffs”) Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No.
27 27). Plaintiffs accompanied this renewed Motion with redacted versions of the
28 Declarations of Luisa Garcia (ECF No. 27-2), Todd Renner (ECF No. 27-3), and Michael
1 Houston (ECF No. 27-4), each of which Plaintiffs previously filed under seal (collectively,
2 the “Declarations”).1 Defendants Rebecca Bamberger, RBW Holdco Inc., and BAM by
3 BIG LLC (“BIG”) (collectively, “Defendants”) did not oppose the Motion. Having
4 carefully considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
5 Motion.
6 BACKGROUND
7 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Issuance of
8 Temporary Restraining Order, Seizure Order, Order to Show Cause for Preliminary
9 Injunction, Order for Expedited Discovery, and Preservation Order (“Appl.,” ECF No. 5).
10 At that time, Plaintiffs sought to file the entire Application, including the associated Garcia
11 and Renner Declarations, under seal. ECF No. 6 (the “First Seal Mot.”).
12 On April 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Application and
13 the First Seal Motion. See generally ECF No. 7 (the “Order”). As to the First Seal Motion,
14 though select portions of the Application and its exhibits likely merited sealing, large
15 portions of each contained information for which sealing was not justified. Id. at 12. The
16 Court thus informed Plaintiffs that it would allow them to file these documents under seal
17 temporarily, pending a renewed motion identifying compelling reasons to seal only
18 specific, highly sensitive portions.2 Id. at 12–13. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to file
19 proposed redactions to documents that did not merit sealing in their entirety. Id. The
20 instant Motion followed.
21 / / /
22 / / /
23
24
25 1 Plaintiffs have refiled unredacted versions of these declarations within a Proposed Lodged Document
(“PLD,” ECF Nos. 28 to 28-7). The Court will hereinafter refer to the both the unredacted and redacted
26 versions of each declaration as the “Garcia Declaration,” “Renner Declaration,” and “Houston
Declaration,” respectively.
27
28
2 As Plaintiffs have publicly filed redacted versions of the Declarations—and the Court approves of those
1 LEGAL STANDARD
2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). “Unless a particular court
5 record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the
6 starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
7 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
8 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although
9 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of
10 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr.
11 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United
12 States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
13 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong
14 presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The showing required to meet this
15 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more
16 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.
17 As relevant here, the “compelling reasons” standard typically applies to requests to seal
18 filed alongside motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. See
19 id. at 1099.
20 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
21 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 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,
24 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). For instance, “the common-law right
25 of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to ensure that its records are not
26 used . . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
27 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of
28 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further
1 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447
2 F.3d at 1179.
3 To satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must
4 “present ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . .
5 show that these specific interests . . . outweigh[] the ‘public interest in understanding the
6 judicial process.’” Id. at 1181 (citation omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and
7 then quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant
8 must make this required particularized showing for each document it seeks to seal.” Avnet,
9 Inc. v. Avana Techs. Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev.
10 Aug. 20, 2014) (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103
11 (9th Cir. 1999)). If the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that
12 their compelling interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of
13 said document. See In re Roman Cath, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). If, by contrast,
14 compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the movant must offer
15 compelling reasons to seal each portion they believe should be sealed. See In re Roman
16 Cath., 661 F.3d at 425.
17 The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial
18 court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
19 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. “[T]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing
20 interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”
21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135).
22 DISCUSSION
23 Plaintiffs contend the three at-issue Declarations contain confidential information
24 and trade secrets that warrant sealing. Mot. at 5. To that end, Plaintiffs seek to seal/redact
25 select portions of each Declaration. Id. Per Plaintiffs, the proposed redactions would
26 prevent disclosure of their “business relationships, plans, client lists and contact
27 information, strategies, and trade secrets.” Id. at 10–11. If the Court were to deny their
28 proposed redactions, Plaintiffs argue, their competitors could “exploit that information to
1 obtain a competitive advantage.” Id.
2 Plaintiffs seek to seal three categories of information. See id. at 5, 8–9. These
3 categories include Plaintiffs’ (1) confidential business strategies and related expenses; (2)
4 URLs linking to internal documents; and (3) third-party outreach and client information.
5 The Court will address each category in turn.
6 I. Plaintiffs’ Business Strategies and Expenses
7 Plaintiffs argue Exhibits 7, 9, 10, and 19—and Paragraph 12—of the Garcia
8 Declaration should be sealed/redacted because they reveal Plaintiffs’ confidential business
9 strategies. Mot. at 8. Paragraph 12 provides the “amount LLYC Madrid spent in marketing
10 and advertising the LLYC brand in 2023,” Garcia Decl. ¶ 12; Exhibit 7 contains BAM’s
11 employee handbook, id. Ex. 7; Exhibits 9 and 10 offer board meeting minutes, id. Exs. 9–
12 10; and Exhibit 19 includes a business proposal to a client, id. Ex. 19. Plaintiffs justify
13 their proposed redactions to these portions of the Garcia Declaration as follows: access to
14 this information would allow Plaintiffs’ competitors to profit “from the time and money
15 that BAM expended developing these strategies.” Mot. at 8.
16 The Court concludes compelling reasons exist to redact the above Paragraph and
17 Exhibits because disclosure of the information contained therein could harm Plaintiffs’
18 competitive standing. See, e.g., San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego LLC,
19 No. 3:22-CV-01145-RBM-DDL, 2024 WL 2059737, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2024)
20 (granting motion to seal litigant’s marketing expenses because competitors might be able
21 to profit from their knowledge of the litigant’s budget); W. Air Charter, Inc. v. Schembari,
22 No. EDCV17420JGBKSX, 2018 WL 10157139, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018) (sealing
23 employee handbook because its development “required the investment of significant
24 resources” and it contained “confidential information related to employee benefits and
25 compensation”); In re BofI Holding, Inc. S’holder Litig., No. 315CV02722GPCKSC, 2017
26 WL 784118, at *20–21 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (granting motion to seal meeting minutes
27 because meeting participants discussed “proprietary business information”); Network
28 Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2010 WL 841274, at *4–
1 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (granting motion to seal business information, marketing
2 information, and “future business plans” because a competitor could benefit from said
3 information).
4 II. BIG’s Google Drive URLs
5 Paragraph 103 of the Garcia Declaration contains “the URL of BIG’s Google drive,”
6 which purportedly contains all of BAM’s business-related information, including its trade
7 secrets. Garcia Decl. ¶ 103. The same is true of Paragraphs 19 and 20(a)–(c) and Exhibits
8 3 and 4 of the Renner Declaration. Renner Decl. ¶¶ 19, 20(a)–(c); id. Exs. 3–4. Plaintiffs
9 contend these references should be redacted because disclosure of the link to BIG’s Google
10 Drive would give BAM’s competitors access to “BAM’s confidential information and trade
11 secrets.” Id. at 11. As, with access to BIG’s drive, BAM’s competitors would be able to
12 unfairly compete with BAM by targeting its clients and mimicking its business strategies,
13 compelling reasons justify redacting these URLs. See, e.g., 3D Sys., Inc. v. Wynne, No.
14 21-CV-1141-AGS-DDL, 2024 WL 1122377, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024) (granting
15 motion to seal/redact URLs and file pathways connected to folders storing confidential
16 information).
17 III. Plaintiffs’ Third-Party Outreach and Client Information
18 Plaintiffs claim Exhibits 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the Garcia Declaration
19 contain sensitive and confidential information relating to BAM’s clients. Mot. at 8–9.
20 Specifically, Exhibits 8, 11, 20, and 21 contain invoices stating client names, addresses,
21 and billing information, Garcia Decl. Exs. 8, 11, 20, 21; Exhibits 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21
22 include emails revealing client names and email addresses, id. Exs. 14, 15, 18, 20, 21; and
23 Exhibit 17 comprises a list of client names, associated contact information, and notes for
24 each client, id. Ex. 17. Plaintiffs also seek to redact similar information in Exhibits 3, 4,
25 and 5 of the Houston Declaration and Exhibits 3 and 4 of the Renner Declaration, Houston
26 Decl. Exs. 3–5; Renner Decl. Exs. 3–4, contending compelling reasons justify the proposed
27 redactions to the above exhibits because, absent redaction, Plaintiffs’ competitors could
28 “mimic its business relationships.” Mot. at 8–9. The Court agrees. See, e.g., Apex.AI, Inc.
1 Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 23,
2 2023)
3 CONCLUSION
4 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No.
5 ||27) and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to file ECF No. 28 under seal.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated: June 24, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite-
g on. Janis L. Sammartino
9 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28