1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Vitalyte Sports Nutrition Inc., Case No.: 21cv880-JO-BGS

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. MOTION TO PRECLUDE;

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

14 Revitalyte LLC et al,

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

15 Defendants. GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Vitalyte Sports Nutrition Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a trademark infringement 22 action against Defendants Revitalyte LLC and Does 1-100 (collectively, “Defendant”). In 23 response, Defendants filed three counterclaims and asserted affirmative defenses of laches 24 and acquiescence. Plaintiff filed a Daubert motion to preclude expert opinion and 25 testimony from Defendant’s damages expert, Andrew J. Lagoo [Dkt. 33]. Defendant filed 26 a motion for summary judgment on its laches and acquiescence defenses, and on Counts 1 27 and 3 of its counterclaims [Dkt. 37]. 28 1 The Court held oral argument on the motions on January 18, 2023. For the reasons 2 stated on the record during the oral argument, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Daubert 3 motion to preclude [Dkt. 33] as to testimony on loss of goodwill and DENIES as moot the 4 remainder of the motion. The Court also DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary 5 judgment [Dkt. 37]. 6 Defendant also filed an unopposed motion to file under seal portions of Defendant’s 7 motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents [Dkt. 35]. Defendant seeks 8 to seal documents discussing Defendant’s confidential business strategy, copies of 9 Defendant’s confidential licensing and distributor agreements, copies of Defendant’s small 10 business loan agreements containing confidential financial information about Defendant 11 and its co-founders, and documents discussing Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s confidential 12 financial and business information. Id. The parties also jointly moved the Court to seal 13 portions of Plaintiff’s Daubert motion and accompanying deposition testimony and expert 14 report that discussed Defendant’s confidential, non-public financial information [Dkt. 31]. 15 In considering a sealing request, the court begins with “a strong presumption of 16 access [as] the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 17 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record in a dispositive motion bears 18 the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” 19 standard. Id. A party seeking to seal materials related to non-dispositive motions must 20 show good cause by making a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 21 will result” should the information be disclosed. Id. at 1179–80. 22 In this case, the Court finds that the parties have demonstrated compelling reasons 23 to seal these documents. The parties seek to seal confidential financial information about 24 the parties on the basis that disclosure of this information subjects the parties to undue risk 25 of serious harm and competitive disadvantage. The requests are narrowly tailored to 26 specific redactions of confidential non-public financial information in motions and 27 exhibits. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal [Dkt. 35] portions of the 28 motion for summary judgment and supporting documents. For the same reasons, the Court 1 GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to seal [Dkt. 31] portions of the Daubert 2 motion and supporting documents. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: February 13, 2023 5 6 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28