TV Ears, Inc. v. Joyshiya Development Limited

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TV EARS, INC., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01708-WQH-BGS Plaintiff,

ORDER v.

JOYSHIYA DEVELOPMENT

LIMITED; SHENZHEN

SUPERSTAR ELECTRONICS

CO., LTD.; SHENZHEN

JOYSHIYA ELECTRONIC CO.

LTD.; SHENZHEN SIMOLIO

ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff TV Ears, Inc. filed a Motion to File Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff seeks to file unredacted documents in support of its Opposition to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio Electronic Co., Ltd.’s (“Shenzhen Simolio”) Motion to Dismiss, which have been marked as “confidential” by Defendant Shenzhen Simolio.1

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal states that the documents at issue were produced by A party seeking to file a document under seal as an attachment to a dispositive motion “bears the burden of overcoming th[e] strong presumption [in favor of public access judicial records] by meeting the compelling reasons standard.” Kamakana y. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “[T]he party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access }and the public policies favoring disclosure... .” Jd. at 1178-79. The designation of a document as “confidential” does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. See Houston Cas. Co. v. Cibus US LLC, No. 19-cv-00828-BAS-LL, 2021 WL 3678599, at *2 (Aug. 19, 2021) (ordering a party to file a response “that explains why there are compelling reasons seal information . . . designated as confidential”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Shenzhen Simolio shall file a Response to the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 36) on or before November 8, 2021. Dated: November 1, 2021 BE: eg Ze. A a Hon, William Q. Hayes United States District Court

|} authorized as to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio and Zhuoya Gao, and the Declaration of Mark G. Clark offered in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Shenzhen Simolio’s Motion to Dismiss states that the documents were produced by Defendant Shenzhen Simolio.