"Related to this, the incidents giving rise to this case transpired in the latter half of 2009 when it was the policy of the Department of Justice to not pursue marijuana collectives operating in compliance with California law—and BT Collective has since dissolved. Even in light of a recent, apparent shift in policy suggesting that California law-abiding marijuana collectives are no longer safe from federal prosecution,3 the Court suspects the prosecution of BT Collective’s principals is a remote possibility. So, even assuming the threat of criminal
prosecution supports sealing, which it does not, the Court would still find that BT Collective has failed to offer a compelling reason for sealing the motion to dismiss."
"The factual issuein this case—whether irrigation tubing sold by Sunlight Supply leached chemicals that killed BT Collective’s marijuana plants—is not a particularly interesting or essential one, and certainly not critical to the public’s understanding of the judicial process. The issue raised by Sunlight Supply’s motion to dismiss, however, is of statewide if not national interest. The manner in which California’s decriminalization of medical marijuana collides with federal criminal law, and the ability of medical marijuana dispensaries to seek legal relief in the federal courts, are matters of great public interest, and far more critical than an ordinary product liability lawsuit to the “public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.”
"Indeed, the protective orders were entered before the BT Collective principals even sat for deposition—before it was certain what the scope of their testimony would be, and before it was certain how or to what extent they would incriminate themselves under the Controlled Substances Act. They are not the kind of protective orders, then, that can automatically supply the good cause required to seal the documents they cover."
"Court has already articulated its skepticism about the risk BT Collective would run by litigating this case publicly. It dissolved after its claims against Sunlight Supply arose, and it was in operation during a time when the Department of Justice had little interest in pursuing marijuana collectives in compliance with California"
"Collective has also conceded that Sunlight Supply is not trying to bully it out of this lawsuit by threatening criminal exposure. Indeed, Sunlight Supply was initially amenable to the protective orders entered by Judge Gallo as well as the sealing now being sought. Finally,there is a clear distinction in the Court’s judgment between, on the one hand, the public’s interest in a discrimination-free workplace and the robust, private enforcement of Title VII, and, on the other hand, the public’s interest in a criminal enterprise seeking legal redress in court for a faulty product that impeded the enterprise."
Either way sounds like they lost and ended up busted by feds....
