J.M. Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Uni-Ter Underwriting Management Corporation et al

Filing 82

ORDER that Exhibits A, C, and D. attached to the Uni-Ter Defendants' Notice of Filing 69 shall remain under seal. The Clerk shall unseal Exhibit B to the Uni-Ter Defendants' Notice of Filing 69 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/15/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

J.M. WOODWORTH RISK RETENTION
GROUP,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNI-TER UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT
)
CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00911-APG-PAL
ORDER

14
15

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff J.M. Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc.’s

16

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Filing Documents Under Seal (Dkt. #77) filed

17

April 2, 2014. The court has considered the Memorandum and the Declaration of Constance L.

18

Akridge, Esq., filed in support of the Memorandum.

19

On March 25, 2014, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #74) denying the Uni-Ter Defendants’

20

Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. #68). The Uni-Ter Defendants sought an order

21

to file certain documents designated by Plaintiff as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order (Dkt.

22

#39), entered January 22, 2014, namely: (a) Plaintiff’s meeting minutes; (b) Certificate of Authority

23

#18273 issued by the State of Nevada to Plaintiff; (c) excerpts of Plaintiff’s Nevada Captive

24

Application for Authority; and (d) transcript of Mr. Louis E. Pleninger’s deposition taken February 13,

25

2014. The Uni-Ter Defendants sought to file those documents under seal in connection with their

26

Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. #65). The court denied the Uni-Ter Defendants’ request

27

without prejudice, finding they had not made a particularized showing of good cause as required by the

28

Ninth Circuit in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The

1

court allowed Plaintiff to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Uni-Ter

2

Defendants’ request to file these documents under seal. Plaintiff complied and filed the instant

3

Memorandum.

4

First, Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists to seal Plaintiff’s meeting minutes because they

5

contain substantial discussion about Plaintiff’s proprietary business practices, the structure of Plaintiff’s

6

business, information about Plaintiff’s finances, relationships with its service providers and clients, and

7

marketing efforts. Plaintiff asserts that filing these documents in the public record would cause

8

infringement on Plaintiff’s trade secrets, injure its relationship with its clients, and interfere with

9

Plaintiff’s ability to negotiate future transactions with service providers.

10

Second, with respect to Certificate of Authority Number 18273, Plaintiff represents that these

11

documents do not contain proprietary or otherwise confidential business information, and it does not

12

object to them being filed in the public record.

13

Third, Plaintiff contends that the excepts from its Nevada Captive Application for Authority

14

include details about Plaintiff’s proprietary business plan, operations, practices, organizational charts,

15

and Plaintiff’s confidential offering memorandum between it and its clients. Allowing these documents

16

to be filed in the public record would cause infringement on Plaintiff’s trade secrets, injure its

17

relationship with its clients, and interfere with Plaintiff’s ability to negotiate future transactions with

18

service providers.

19

Fourth, with respect to the transcript of Mr. Louis E. Pleninger, taken February 13, 2014,

20

Plaintiff asserts that during the deposition, Mr. Pleninger discussed significant aspects of Plaintiff’s

21

business practices, business models, and its Board of Directors’ policy and decision-making practices.

22

To file the deposition in the public record would expose Plaintiff’s proprietary business practices and

23

jeopardize measures taken by Plaintiff to maintain the confidentiality of these practices.

24

In the Ninth Circuit, it is well-established that the “fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence

25

of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News v. United States District

26

Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999). However, where a party opposing disclosure shows good

27

cause for limiting access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery and

28

attached to non-dispositive motions, the materials may be filed under seal. See Kamakana v. City and
2

1

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court finds Plaintiff has stated good cause for

2

maintaining the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s meeting minutes, Nevada Captive Application for

3

Authority, and the deposition transcript from the deposition of Mr. Louis E. Pleninger, taken on

4

February 13, 2014, all of which were filed in connection with the Uni-Ter Defendants’ Supplemental

5

Claim Construction Brief on Jurisdiction (Dkt. #65).

6

For these reasons,

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1.

9
10
11
12

Exhibits A, C, and D, attached to the Uni-Ter Defendants’ Notice of Filing (Dkt. #69),
shall remain under seal.

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall unseal Exhibit B to the Uni-Ter Defendants’ Notice of
Filing (Dkt. #69).

Dated this 15th day of April, 2014.

13
14
15
16

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3