SuccessfulMatch.com

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 REFLEX MEDIA, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-06393-JD

7 Plaintiffs,

SECOND ORDER RE SEALING

v. 8

9 SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, et al., Defendants. 10

11 12 In this trademark dispute between rival online matchmaking companies, the parties have 13 filed several Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be 14 Sealed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See Dkt. Nos. 117, 121, 125, 130, 133, 135, 140, and 15 142. Only defendant Successful Match filed responses requesting sealing of its designated 16 materials. See Dkt. Nos. 123 & 144. Sealing is granted in part. 17 Because Successful Match asks to seal materials filed in connection with a motion for 18 summary judgment and motions to exclude experts, it must “articulate compelling reasons 19 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 20 policies favoring disclosure.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 21 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting Kamakana v. City…