AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 337

ORDER 325 Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part. The unredacted Exhibit at Docket No. 326 will remain under seal. No later than July 22, 2013, Defendants shall refile on the public docket that exhibit with the redactions previously approved for Docket No. 257-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/15/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
AEVOE CORP.,
9
Plaintiff(s),
10
vs.
11
AE TECH. CO., et al.,
12
Defendant(s).
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL IN PART
(Docket No. 325)

14

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal. Docket No. 325 (“Mot.”). The

15

motion seeks to file under seal Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ motion to compel. See Docket No. 326

16

(Exhibit 6); see also Docket No. 324 (publicly-filed version with Exhibit 6 omitted). Plaintiff filed a

17

declaration in partial support of the motion. See Docket No. 336. For good cause shown and for the

18

reasons set out below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion in part.

19

I.

20

STANDARD
The documents at issue in the motion to seal are all related to non-dispositive motions. The

21

Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records and

22

that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions

23

must make a particularized showing of “good cause” to overcome the presumption of public access.

24

See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Aevoe

25

Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., 2013 WL 2302310, *1 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013). To the extent any

26

confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to

27

the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents.

28

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Vaccine Ctr.

1

LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298, *9-10 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013)

2

(discussing redaction requirement).

3

II.

ANALYSIS

4

The requested motion seeks to seal Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses. See

5

Docket No. 336 at ¶ 8. The exhibit is the same as the exhibit at Docket No. 257-1, for which the

6

Court has previously found good cause to exist for allowing certain redactions. See Docket No. 308

7

at 2-3. The exhibit as previously filed was redacted rather than sealed in its entirety. See Docket

8

No. 257-1. Plaintiff “does not seek to seal other portions of Docket No. 326 that do not correspond

9

to the sealed portions of Exhibit A filed at Docket No. 257-1.” Docket No. 336 at ¶ 11.

10

For the same reasons articulated by the Court previously with respect to Docket No. 257-1,

11

see id., the Court finds good cause exists here to redact certain portions of that exhibit. The Court

12

does not, however, find that the entire document is properly sealed. As such, Defendants shall file a

13

redacted version of the Exhibit in accord with the redactions ordered for Docket No. 257-1.

14

III.

15

CONCLUSION
For good cause shown, Defendants’ motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in part. The

16

unredacted Exhibit at Docket No. 326 will remain under seal. No later than July 22, 2013,

17

Defendants shall refile on the public docket that exhibit with the redactions previously approved for

18

Docket No. 257-1.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: July 15, 2013

21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2