Fahey et al v. Sun Bum LLC

1
3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREA FAHEY; and KEVIN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUN BUM LLC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO FILE UNREDACTED
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
UNDER SEAL WITH REDACTED
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOT UNDER SEAL AT DOC. NO. 14;
AND
(2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO
FILE THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
[Doc. No. 15.]
On March 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an extensive second amended complaint with
paragraphs 33 and 35–37 redacted. (Doc. No. 14.) On March 6, 2026, Plaintiffs lodged a
motion to file the unredacted second amended complaint under seal pursuant to an
agreement with Defendant. 	(Doc. No. 15.) 	Both parties acknowledge Defendant’s
assertion that the redacted paragraphs contain confidential and proprietary business
information arising from confidential lab test results on Defendant’s product. 	(Doc. No.
Case 3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15; Doc. No. 17.) 	The parties agree that some of the facts alleged in the redacted
paragraphs were derived from those results. (Doc. No. 15; Doc. No. 17.)
Courts 	have 	historically 	recognized 	a 	fundamental 	presumption 	that 	judicial
proceedings are open to the public. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S.
596, 604 (1982); see also Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir.
2020). 	This presumptive openness entails a “general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City and
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). As such, both the Supreme Court and the
Ninth Circuit have held that courts begin with a “strong presumption in favor of access to
court records.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2016) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003)). But the right to access judicial records is not absolute. “A party seeking to seal a
judicial record [] bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the
‘compelling reasons’ standard.” 	Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 	Under this standard, the
Court may seal records if it finds a “compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis
for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. The Court must
then “conscientiously balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who
seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). What
constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Warner Commnc’ns, 435 U.S. at 599.
The parties have demonstrated a compelling reason to redact paragraphs 33 and 35–
37 of the second amended complaint, as well as file the unredacted second amended
complaint under seal. Both parties agree that the facts alleged in the proposed redaction
are at least somewhat derived from confidential lab test results on Defendant’s product.
(Doc. No. 15; Doc. No. 17.) Defendant also alleges in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion to
seal that the SPF testing results referenced in the redacted portions “would harm
[Defendant’s] competitive position in the marketplace” if disclosed publicly. 	(Doc. No.
Case 3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.) 	Courts have acknowledged that “business information that might harm a litigant’s
competitive standing” are a compelling reason to seal a record. Chrysler Group, 809 F.3d
at 1097 (quoting Warner Commnc’ns, 435 U.S. at 598–99). 	The parties’ proposed
redaction is also four paragraphs out of an extensive 165 paragraph complaint. (Doc. No.
14, Second Amended Compl.) 	The parties’ proposed redactions are thus appropriately
tailored, striking an adequate balance between the “competing interests of the public and
the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135).
As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request without prejudice to the Court
modifying this order at a later time. The Court reserves the right to unseal all or some of
the pleadings as appropriate under the law. 	The Court directs the Clerk to seal and file
Plaintiffs’ unredacted second amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 16, 2026
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-02263-H-SBC Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3