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)

Download PDF
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?