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

Filing 397

ORDER that no later than 10/25/2013, Plaintiff shall submit supplemental materials further supporting 292 Motion to Seal as it relates to its exhibits. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 292)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Docket No. 292. For the reasons

14

discussed more fully below, the Court finds the papers submitted by Plaintiff to be insufficient to

15

warrant sealing. The documents shall remain under seal for the time being. However, no later than

16

October 25, 2013, Plaintiff shall submit a supplemental filing providing further basis for its request

17

as outlined more fully below. The failure to do so will result in the Court making the exhibit

18

publicly available.

19

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

20

records and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-

21

dispositive motions must make a particularized showing of “good cause” to overcome the

22

presumption of public access. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180

23

(9th Cir. 2006); see also Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., 2013 WL 2302310, *1 (D. Nev. May 24,

24

2013). To the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful

25

information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than

26

sealing entire documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir.

27

2003); see also Vaccine Ctr. LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298, *9-10 (D.

28

Nev. May 14, 2013) (discussing redaction requirement).

1

The pending motion seeks to seal portions of Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause

2

(Docket No. 293) and certain exhibits attached to the declaration filed in support thereof (Docket

3

No. 294). With respect to the request to seal excerpts of Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show

4

cause, Plaintiff contends that the information relates to Defendants’ confidential and proprietary

5

sales information and business model. See Docket No. 292 at 3. Defendants, however, have not

6

submitted a declaration in support of the sealing request. Cf. Docket No. 334 (amending protective

7

order to establish procedure for requests to seal an opposing party’s confidential information).

8
9

With respect to the request to seal exhibits attached to the declaration filed in support the
motion for an order to show cause, the motion asserts without elaboration that the exhibits “contain[]

10

confidential and proprietary information about its sales information and business model.” See

11

Docket No. 292 at 4. There is no further explanation as to why the six exhibits identified merit

12

secrecy.

13

The Court is unable to conclude based on the papers that there is good cause supporting the

14

motion to seal. Accordingly, no later than October 25, 2013, Plaintiff shall submit supplemental

15

materials further supporting the motion to seal as it relates to its exhibits. To the extent the motion

16

to seal relates to Defendants’ confidential information, the parties shall confer prior to that date and

17

Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff an appropriate declaration for filing in support of the motion to

18

seal no later than October 24, 2013.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: October 18, 2013

21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2