1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 TORREY PINES LOGIC, INC., Case No.: 19-cv-02195-H-DEB 12 Plaintiff, Counterdefendant,

ORDER:

13 v. 14 (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

GUNWERKS, LLC,

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS

15 Defendant, Counterclaimant. UNDER SEAL; 16 [Doc. No. 65.] 17

18 (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

FILE THE PROPOSED

19

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND

20 [Doc. No. 66.] 21

22 (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO

PUBLICLY FILE A REVISED

23

REDACTED VERSION OF ITS

24 OPPOSITION

25 On August 19, 2020, Defendant and Counterclaimant Gunwerks, LLC 26 (“Gunwerks”) filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer and counterclaims. 27 (Doc. No. 62.) On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Torrey Pines Logic, 28 1 (“TPL”) filed an opposition to Gunwerk’s motion. (Doc. Nos. 66, 67.) On September 2 ||4, 2020, TPL also filed a motion to file under seal its opposition and Exhibit C to its 3 || opposition. (Doc. No. 65.) 4 TPL seeks to seal these documents pursuant to the Court’s protective order, (Doc. 5 ||No. 63), because they contain confidential information. (Doc. No. 65 at 1.) After 6 ||reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause exists to seal 7 documents. Accordingly, the Court grants TPL’s request to file the documents under 8 without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the 9 |/information in a written order, and the Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed 10 ||}documents under seal. 11 Nevertheless, the Court notes that with respect to its opposition brief, TPL seeks to 12 the entire document. Although the opposition contains some sealable information, the 13 |/entire document is not sealable. (See Doc. No. 66.) Thus, TPL’s sealing request is not 14 narrowly tailored. See Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (“Any 15 || order sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only 16 || the material that is protected.” (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 17 ||513 (1984))). As a result, the Court orders TPL to publicly file a revised redacted version 18 || of its opposition within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||DATED: September 8, 2020 | | | | l | | | 2 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distri ge 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 23 24 25 26 27 28