Sharif v. Dawson et al

1
26cv965-LL-JLB
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
STEVEN SHARIF, as an individual and
derivatively on behalf of INTREPID
STUDIOS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT DAWSON, RYAN OGDEN,
THERESA FETTE, AARON BARTELS,
and TFE GAMES HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants,
And
INTREPID STUDIOS, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No.: 26cv965-LL-JLB
ORDER GRANTING INTREPID
STUDIOS, INC.’S MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT E TO ITS
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AT ECF NO. 195-5
[ECF No. 199]
Before the Court is Intrepid Studios, Inc.’s Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit E to
its Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 195-5], which it claims was inadvertently
docketed without redactions on October 6, 2026. ECF No. 199. Intrepid contends that
sealing is warranted because the exhibit discloses personal identifying and financial
information of a party. Id.; ECF No. 199-1, Declaration of Vincent J. Aiello, ¶ 3.
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 204 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
26cv965-LL-JLB
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
In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted). This provides federal courts with “a measure of accountability and for the public
to 	have 	confidence 	in 	the 	administration 	of 	justice.” 	Ctr. 	for 	Auto 	Safety 	v.
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). However, a
court may seal material produced in a motion that is unrelated or only tangentially related
to the merits of the case for good cause. Id. at 1097, 1101.
The good cause standard applies here because the motion for order to show cause is
unrelated to the merits of the case. The Court finds good cause to GRANT the Motion to
redact personal identifying and financial information. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (noting that courts have denied public access to court
documents where they “might become a vehicle for improper purposes”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP Document 204 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2