Andes Industries, Inc. et al v. Lan et al

Filing 150

ORDER that 146 RIPL's Motion to File Under Seal is granted as state in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/23/16. (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

ANDES INDUSTRIES, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHENG SUN LAN, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law’s (hereinafter “RIPL”) Motion to File

14

Under Seal (ECF No. 146), filed on June 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their Response on June 15, 2016.

15

(ECF No. 148).

16

RIPL requests leave to file its reply in support of motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9 through

17

31 attached thereto under seal because Defendants eGtran Corporation and EZconn Corporation,

18

RIPL’s former clients, “[did] not waive their privilege” and “[did] not authorize [RIPL] to file the

19

documents, redacted or otherwise, or to disclose their content.” Motion (ECF No. 146), pg. 2, lns 13-

20

15. RIPL provides that it “takes no position as to whether or not its Reply Brief and supporting

21

materials should be filed under seal.” Id. at pg. 3, lns 9-10.

22

There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

23

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). For non-dispositive motions, a party

24

seeking to seal a judicial record must meet the “good cause” standard under Rule 26 of the Federal

25

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179. Under Rule 26( c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an

26

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

27

expense.” See id. at 1180. Rule 26( c) requires the moving party to make a “particularized

28

showing”of good cause. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th cir. 2003).

1

Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning, do not

2

satisfy the Rule 26(c) test. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

3

RIPL does not identify any of the specific information that should be sealed, but represents

4

that Defendants object to the filing of confidential client communications or documents. RIPL shall

5

file a redacted version of its reply in support of its motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9-31 attached

6

thereto in the open record. The Court grants RIPL leave to file the unredacted version of its reply in

7

support of its motion to enforce lien and exhibits attached thereto under seal. Accordingly,

8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that RIPL’s Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 146) is
granted as stated in this order.
DATED this 23rd day of June, 2016.

11
12
13
14
15

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2