1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HIGHFIELDS CAPITAL I LLP, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-1276-MMA (AGS) 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 12 Plaintiffs, FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL v. 13 [Doc. Nos. 128, 130, 131, 133, 136, 138, SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 140, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 154, 156, 14 et al., 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 173] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, 19 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the parties’ Daubert motions, and various 20 evidentiary objections. The parties seek to file various documents related to their 21 motions, oppositions, replies, evidence, and objections under seal.1 The parties’ motions 22 to seal are unopposed. 23 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 24 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 26 Inc.,

, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 27 28 1

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need 2 for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are 3 independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence 4 in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo,

(2d 6 Cir. 1995)). As such, “the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant.” 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by 8 “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 9 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 10 the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178 (citations omitted) 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] 12 the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 13 records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the 15 sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. For Auto Safety,

(quoting 16 Nixon,

). 17 Having reviewed the motions and respective documents, the Court finds that both 18 parties have shown compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. As the parties 19 explain, the documents contain “confidential trading data and proprietary valuation 20 models, which reflect discussions of such data or models, and/or contain sensitive 21 business and investment information,” Doc. No. 168 at 6, including “(i) non-public 22 revenue or attendance data, (ii) internal policies, procedures, or strategies, including those 23 concerning SeaWorld’s Disclosure Committee, [and] (iii) propriety market research and 24 survey data,” Doc. No. 173 at 3. As the Court has previously recognized, such 25 confidential business materials may be properly sealed so as to prevent “improper use by 26 competitors, ‘circumvent[ing] the time and resources necessary in developing [the 27 competitor’s] own practices and strategies.’” Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc., No. 28 14cv2129-MMA (AGS),

, at *17 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) 1 || (quoting Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, No. 12cv3000 AJB (DHB),

23882, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)). 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions to file documents under seal 4 ||and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file the following UNDER SEAL: Doc. Nos. 129, 5 |} 132, 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 148, 150, 151, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 6 190. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 8, 2021 9 Mitel (hielle — = - 10 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 1H United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28