Takiguchi et al v. MRI International, Inc. et al

Filing 592

ORDER denying ECF No. 562 Defendant Suzukis' Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 01/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA,
MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO SAKAI,
SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA,
MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO,
AND HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J )
FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL
)
MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba
)
STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, )
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

2:13-cv-01183-HDM-VCF
ORDER

On November 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed separate motions for

25

partial summary judgment against defendants (1) Junzo Suzuki; (2)

26

Paul Suzuki; and (3) MRI and Edwin Fujinaga.

27

motion against Junzo Suzuki and certain of its exhibits (ECF No.

28

529) under seal, along with a concurrent motion for leave to do so
1

Plaintiffs filed the

1

(ECF No. 528).

2

Suzuki relied on evidence that had been designated as confidential

3

pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 335)

4

– specifically, Junzo Suzuki’s deposition – and that while they

5

disagreed as to the scope of the confidentiality designation, they

6

agreed that the deposition contained references to “private

7

financial information” that was properly protected from public

8

disclosure.

9

motion to seal.

10

Plaintiffs asserted that the motion against Junzo

On November 2, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs’

On December 9, 2016, the Suzukis filed their oppositions to

11

the motions for summary judgment.

12

under seal.

13

plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Facts (ECF Nos. 564 & 567).

14

Those responses were filed under seal.

15

concurrent motion to seal, which included a request that the

16

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against Paul Suzuki and

17

Appendix 1 to that motion also be sealed.

18

all three documents relied on or referenced deposition “testimony

19

regarding private financial information and other sensitive

20

information protected from public disclosure under the terms of the

21

Protective Order.”

22

The oppositions were not filed

In addition, the Suzukis filed their responses to the

The Suzukis filed a

The Suzukis argued that

(ECF No. 562 at 3).

On January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed their replies to the

23

responses to the motions for summary judgment and to the Suzukis’

24

responses to the separate statements of fact.

25

document plaintiffs filed under seal, along with a concurrent

26

motion for leave to do so, was their reply to Junzo Suzuki’s

27

response to the plaintiffs’ separate statement of facts. (ECF Nos.

28

578 & 579).
2

Of these, the only

1

The public has a “general right . . . to inspect and copy

2

public records and documents, including judicial records and

3

documents.”

4

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

6

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

7

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

8

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2009).

9

relevant factors, including “public interest in understanding the

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
A “party seeking to seal judicial records

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
The court must weigh

10

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could

11

result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous

12

purposes or infringement upon trade secrets,” in deciding a motion

13

to seal.

14

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).

15

[of privilege] such as privacy,’ or confidentiality, ‘will not,

16

without more, suffice to exempt a document from the public’s right

17

of access, even where the assertion of privacy or confidentiality

18

is unopposed.”

19

11514215, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2014) (quoting Kamakana, 447

20

F.3d at 1185 and citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.

21

Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Id. at 679 n.6 (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d
“‘Simply invoking a blanket claim,

Trudel v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WL

22

The court has reviewed and considered the materials the

23

plaintiffs and Suzukis seek to have sealed in connection with the

24

motions for summary judgment and finds that nothing contained

25

therein meets the compelling reasons standard.

26

reference to the amounts of commissions received by the Suzukis in

27

exchange for their work with MRI, and to the amounts of money Junzo

28

Suzuki wired back to MRI to cover its shortfalls, the court finds
3

While there is

1

that this information is not the type of sensitive financial

2

information that must be protected from public disclosure.

3

are no account numbers or specific identification of assets by

4

location; this is simply evidence that large sums of money were

5

exchanged between MRI and the Suzukis.

6

that this information could be used for an improper purpose and

7

concludes that the public is entitled to the evidence.

8

do not specifically identify the other claimed “sensitive

9

information” that was revealed during the Suzukis’ depositions

There

The court is not persuaded

The parties

10

which should be protected from public disclosure, much less provide

11

compelling reasons for doing so.

12

Suzukis have designated Paul Suzuki’s deposition as “confidential,”

13

the court is unpersuaded that such designation is proper given that

14

Paul Suzuki answered virtually no questions during his deposition.

As a matter of fact, although the

15

Accordingly, unless the plaintiffs or the Suzukis show cause

16

on or before January 20, 2017, why any specific portions relating

17

to discrete items of information of plaintiffs’ motion for summary

18

judgment against Junzo Suzuki (ECF No. 529) – including Junzo

19

Suzuki’s deposition and the exhibits attached thereto – Junzo

20

Suzuki’s response to the plaintiffs’ statement of facts (ECF No.

21

564), Paul Suzukis’ response to the plaintiffs’ statement of facts

22

(ECF No. 567), and the plaintiffs’ reply to Junzo Suzuki’s response

23

to the separate statement of facts (ECF No. 579) should remain

24

sealed, the court will unseal the aforementioned documents in their

25

entirety.

26

As to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against Paul

27

Suzuki and Appendix 1 thereto, the motion to seal (ECF No. 562) is

28

DENIED.

In any response to the order to show cause, the Suzukis
4

1

may identify specific, discrete information in those documents that

2

they believe should be sealed and the compelling reasons for doing

3

so, and the court will consider the relevant factors to determine

4

whether sealing of that information is appropriate.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: This 10th day of January, 2017.

7
8

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5