RKF Retail Holdings, LLC v. Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER denying without prejudice 66 Motion to Seal 64 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/7/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

RKF RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
RKF RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EASTERN REAL ESTATE LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01232-APG-GWF
ORDER

Case No. 2:15-cv-01446-APG-GWF

18
19

This matter is before the Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to File

20

Under Seal Certain Exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66), filed on November 4,

21

2016.

22

There is generally “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State

23

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Where a petitioner seeks to seal

24

documents or exhibits that are dispositive in nature, the petitioner must meet the higher standard of

25

showing “compelling reasons” for the documents to be sealed. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565

26

F.3d 1106, 1115 n. 4 (9th Cir.2009); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

27

1178 (9th Cir.2006). The Court applies the higher “compelling reasons” standard to dispositive

28

motions, rather than the “good cause” standard, because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits,

1

whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public's

2

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Dish Network L.L. C. v.

3

Sonicview USA, Inc., 2009 WL 2224596, *6 (S.D.Cal. July 23,2009) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

4

1179).

5

To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party “must overcome a strong

6

presumption of access by showing that compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings

7

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Dish Network

8

L.L.C., 2009 WL 2224596 at *7 (citing Pintos, 565 F.3d at 1116); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

9

1179–80. “Under the ‘compelling reasons' standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, base

10

its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate a factual basis for its ruling without relying on

11

hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. “Relevant factors include the public interest in understanding the

12

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for

13

scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Id.

14

The Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden here. Defendant seeks to file its motion

15

for summary judgment under seal pursuant to the Protective Order (ECF No. 28) filed on November

16

9, 2015. Defendant represents that the Exhibits its seeks to seal are documents produced by Plaintiff

17

and a non-party who contend that they contain “sensitive, commercial information subject to

18

protection under the Protective Order.” Motion to Seal (ECF No. 66), 3:18. However, this bare

19

bones explanation as to why these documents are confidential does not justify an order from the Court

20

sealing Exhibits A, F, G, J, and L of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.’s Motion to File

22

Under Seal Certain Exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) is denied without

23

prejudice. Defendant may file a revised motion that provides the Court with sufficient “compelling

24

reasons” to justify its request.

25

DATED this 7th day of November, 2016.

26
27
28

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
2