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