Andes Industries, Inc. et al v. Lan et al
Filing
49
ORDER Granting 46 Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal. Sealed documents 39 , 40 , 44 , and 45 shall remain sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHENG SUN LAN, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC. and
PCT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF
ORDER
Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery,
Response to Motion to Dismiss and
Supporting Exhibits Under Seal (#46)
14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’
15
Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery, Response to Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Exhibits
16
Under Seal (#46), filed on September 17, 2014.
17
The Supreme Court has recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and
18
documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S.
19
589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong
20
presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
21
Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d
22
1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The 9th Circuit has held that the sealing of filings is appropriate to
23
protect the parties’ proprietary business operations and trade secrets. See Kamakana v. City and
24
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party seeking to seal a judicial
25
record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption by articulating the compelling
26
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
27
public policies favoring disclosure. Id. The public policies that support the right of access to
28
dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive
1
materials. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, a
2
‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party
3
must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments. See
4
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Starlite
5
Development (China) Ltd. v. Textron Financial Corp., 2008 WL 2705393 at 34, (E.D. Cal. 2008).
6
Here, Plaintiffs indicate that portions of their motion for jurisdictional discovery, response
7
to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and supporting exhibits for both pleadings contain “highly
8
sensitive trade secret and non-public information such as Plaintiffs’ pricing, purchasing quantities,
9
and internal financial information.” See Dkt. #46. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of
10
its pleadings that reveal confidential customer information. Plaintiffs also seek to seal exhibits to
11
those pleadings, which include a promissory note; a company power point presentation detailing
12
business operations, company products, and disclosing pictures of manufacturing facilities; and
13
portions of internal operating emails and financial invoices. See Dkt. #39, #40, #44, #45. Having
14
reviewed the documents, the Court finds that Plaintiffs establish compelling reasons to file portions
15
of their aforementioned pleadings and exhibits under seal. Accordingly,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion
17
for Jurisdictional Discovery, Response to Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Exhibits Under Seal
18
(#46) is granted. Sealed documents #39, #40, #44, and #45 shall remain sealed.
19
DATED this 19th day of September, 2014.
20
21
22
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?