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

Filing 556

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 545 and 546 Defendants' Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a public version of Exhibit 4 to 546 SEALED Motion for Leave to file Selected Exhibits to 544 Motion for Reconsideration Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 06/13/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
AEVOE CORP.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AE TECH. CO., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket Nos. 545, 546)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants S&F Corporation’s and Greatshield, Inc.’s

17

(“Defendants”) motion to seal. Docket No. 545, 546. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the

18

motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

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-dispositive

21

motions must make a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana v. City and County of

22

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331

23

F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Assoc., 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.

24

2010). 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, 331 F.3d at 1137.

27

The pending motion to seal seeks an order allowing the sealing of certain documents filed in

28

connection with Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the sanctions order issued on April 17, 2014.

1

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the exhibits at issue in the motion to seal relate to a non-

2

dispositive matter. See, e.g., Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 175868, *4 (D.

3

Nev. Dec. 10, 2012) (ruling on motion to seal and indicating that “[a] motion for sanctions arising from

4

a contempt order is not a dispositive motion”). Accordingly, the Court applies the “good cause”

5

standard outlined above.

6

With respect to Exhibit 1, Defendants seek redaction of certain financial information in the

7

Declaration of Feon Tan, as well as complete sealing of the bank and other financial records attached

8

as Exhibits A-C thereto. Compare Docket No. 544-2 (public version) with Docket No. 546-1 (sealed

9

version). With respect to Exhibit 2, Defendants seek complete sealing of balance sheets attached as

10

Exhibits A-B to the Declaration of Andrew Bradley. Compare Docket No. 544-3 (public version) with

11

Docket No. 546-2 (sealed version). Defendants argue that the public release of these financial

12

statements will adversely impact its ability to conduct business and negotiate the terms of future sales.

13

The Court has reviewed the documents and agrees that good cause exists for their sealing. See, e.g.,

14

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applying Ninth Circuit law

15

and finding that parties have “a significant interest in preventing the release of their detailed financial

16

information”). The Court further finds that the exhibits cannot be easily redacted any further while

17

leaving meaningful information available to the public.

18

With respect to Exhibit 3, Defendants seek redaction of figures showing the calculation of profits

19

per unit and lost profits. Compare Docket No. 544-4 (public version) with Docket No. 546-3 (sealed

20

version). Defendants argue that the public release of this sales information will adversely impact its

21

ability to conduct business and negotiate the terms of future sales. The Court has reviewed the

22

documents and agrees that good cause exists for the proposed redactions. See, e.g., Aevoe Corp. v. AE

23

Tech. Co., 2013 WL 6210648, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2013) (listing cases sealing similar information).

24

With respect to Exhibit 4, Defendants seek complete sealing of an email on the basis that

25

Plaintiff has designated that document “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” See Docket No.

26

545 at 4. Plaintiff has now submitted a notice indicating that it does not object to Exhibit 4 being filed

27

publicly notwithstanding its designation as Highly Confidential. Docket No. 555. Accordingly, with

28

respect to Exhibit 4 (Docket No. 546-4) the motion to seal is DENIED.
2

1

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in part

2

and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall file a public version of Exhibit 4 on the docket, no later than June

3

20, 2014.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: June 13, 2014

6
7

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3