Smart City Holdings, LLC et al v. Shownets, LLC et al

Filing 67

ORDER Denying 60 Motion to Seal. Defendant Nussbaum shall file an unsealed copy of 61 Motion to Dismiss within 5 days of the date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 65 Motion to Seal is granted in part and denied in part. Plainti ff's shall file an unsealed copy of 66 MOTION to Dismiss within 5 days of this order. Plaintiffs shall file unsealed and redacted copies of the exhibits to 66 Motion to Dismiss along with a sealed explanation setting forth adequate reasons for any redaction. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/6/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

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

SMART CITY HOLDINGS, LLC, and SMART
CITY NETWORKS, L.P.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHOWNETS, LLC; and SCOTT NUSSBAUM,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01751-GMN-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Nussbaum’s (“Defendant”) Motion to

15

Seal (#60) his Motion to Dismiss (#61), filed on October 21, 2013. This matter also comes before

16

the Court on Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants Smart City Holdings and Smart City Networks’

17

(“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (#65) their Motion to Dismiss (#66), filed on November 4, 2013.

18

The Supreme Court has recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

19

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S.

20

589, 597 n. 7 (1978). A narrow range of documents is not subject to the right of public access

21

because the records have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons.” Times

22

Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Unless a particular court record

23

is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access” is the starting point.

24

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

25

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). A party moving to seal a dispositive

26

motion must articulate “compelling reasons” supported by specific factual findings that “outweigh

27

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City of

28

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). In general, “compelling

1

reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records

2

exist when such “court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as the use

3

of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

4

trade secrets. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

5

Here, Defendant seeks to seal his Motion to Dismiss (#61) because it contains “direct

6

citations” from an exhibit marked “confidential.” Defendant’s bare assertion that the quoted

7

material is “confidential” is insufficient to justify sealing a dispositive motion. Defendant does not

8

articulate in his Motion to Seal (#60) any specific excerpts or quotes from the subject exhibit that

9

might “become a vehicle for improper purposes,” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, nor does the Court find

10

any upon review of the Motion to Dismiss (#61). Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant’s

11

Motion to Seal.

12

Similarly, in their Motion to Seal (#65), Plaintiffs merely state that “portions” of certain

13

deposition transcripts attached as exhibits to its Motion to Dismiss (#66) “contain and discuss trade

14

secrets[.]” Plaintiffs do not elaborate with specificity the nature of the trade secrets or any other

15

information that might cause harm if released. Furthermore, although the Motion to Dismiss (#66)

16

cites to the transcripts, it does not, to the Court’s recognition, quote or contain any trade secrets

17

purportedly within the transcripts. Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiffs to file an unsealed

18

copy of their Motion to Dismiss (#66), and to file unsealed and redacted copies of its exhibits with

19

adequate justification for any redaction. Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Nussbaum’s Motion to Seal (#60) is denied.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Nussbaum shall file an unsealed copy of his

22

Motion to Dismiss (#61) within 5 days of the date of this Order.

23

...

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28

...
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (#65) is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs shall file an unsealed copy of their Motion to Dismiss (#66) within 5 days of
the date of this Order;
(2) Plaintiffs shall file unsealed and redacted copies of the exhibits to their Motion to
Dismiss (#66) along with a sealed explanation setting forth adequate reasons for any redaction.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2013.

8
9
10

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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