Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drk Photo v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

June 10, 2014

DRK Photo, Plaintiff,
v.
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al., Defendants.

ORDER

PAUL G. ROSENBLETT, District Judge.

Before the Court are several discovery-related motions: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition (Doc. 84); Defendants' Motions to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (Docs. 92, 110); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence in Support of Reply on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 105); and Plaintiff's Notice of Lodging, which asks the Court seal the exhibits lodged with the motion for leave to file (Doc. 107). The Court rules on the motions as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff DRK Photo (hereinafter "DRK") is a stock photography agency. It alleges that Defendant McGraw-Hill ("McGraw"), a textbook publisher, infringed DRK's copyright by exceeding the scope of license restrictions pertaining to certain photographs or failing to obtain permission to use the photographs.

On November 26, 2013, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to extend the deadline for discovery to February 28, 2014, and the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions to May 23, 2014. (Doc. 74.)

On February 21, 2014, DRK filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 79), which the Court has denied in a separate order. Along with the motion DRK included a notice of lodging of sealed documents. (Doc. 83.) The sealed documents, lodged at Doc. 82, are Exhibits A and B to DRK's motion for partial summary judgment and Exhibits 2-9 to the Declaration of attorney Amanda Bruss. The documents contain print quantity figures and information about the countries to which the publications at issue have been distributed. McGraw contends that information pertaining to "precise print run and distribution quantities, pricing information, and print run dates" is therefore confidential and should remain sealed. (Doc. 92 at 4.)

On February 24, 2014, McGraw filed its motion for a protective order. (Doc. 84.) On March 23, 2014, McGraw filed its motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 97), which the Court has granted.

On April 8, 2014, DRK filed a motion for leave to file exhibits in support of its reply on its motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 105.) The exhibits are lodged at Docs. 106 and 108 as Exhibits 1 and 2. DRK agreed that they remain sealed for the purpose of its motion to for leave to file the exhibits. (Doc. 107.) McGraw moves to seal Ex. 2 as containing confidential material. (Doc. 110.)

DISCUSSION

1. Protective order

McGraw moved, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for protective order regarding the deposition noticed by DRK in its second amended notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (Doc. 84.) McGraw argued that the topics noticed by DRK have been covered in prior testimony in this case and in parallel litigation brought by DRK's counsel, so additional testimony would be cumulative and unduly burdensome. (Doc. 84 at 7-11.) DRK opposed the motion. (Doc. 89.) The motion will be denied as moot. The discovery deadline has passed and the parties have filed, and the Court has ruled on, motions for summary judgment.

2. Motions to seal

Defendants seek to seal confidential print, financial, and sales documents (Doc. 92) and confidential business process management and related communications (Doc. 110).

There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion "bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons' standard." Id. This means "the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotations omitted). These compelling reasons must be shown even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order. Id. at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.