BGC Partners, Inc. et al v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc. et al

Filing 347

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 330 Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Defendants' 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER OR DERED that Group Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs Reply shall remain sealed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs Reply shall remain temporarily sealed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any party to this dispute wishes to present additional informa tion to the Court seeking to justify sealing Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs Reply 328 , such party must do so within ten (10) days of this Order. If no additional information is provided by the close of business on the tenth (10th) day following the date of this Order, Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs' Reply 328 shall be refiled by Plaintiffs unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 4/30/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 347 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E
ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC
REAL ESTATE OF NEVADA, LLC

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.;
AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON
YOUNG-NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE,
THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP,
JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES
1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES
6 through 10,
Defendants.

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits to Reply in

15

Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. ECF

16

No. 330. No response to this Motion was filed by Defendants.

17

As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming

18

the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City

19

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to

20

maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of

21

showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). “Many courts have applied the compelling

22

reasons standard to . . . temporary restraining orders.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

23

809 F.3d 1092, 1096 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases); see also Selling Source, LLC v. Red River

24

Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *5 (finding requests for

25

preliminary injunctive relief should be treated as dispositive motions for purposes of sealing court

26

records) (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011). However, where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a

27

non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions

28

… do not apply with equal force … .” Kamakana, 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted).
1

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 347 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2

1

The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment,

2

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its

3

records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling

4

reasons require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle

5

for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

6

disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S.

7

589, 598 (1978).

8

The Court has considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Court

9

finds Group Exhibit 1 contains confidential and/or proprietary business information. Therefore,

10

there is a compelling reason for granting Plaintiffs’ Motion as to Group Exhibit 1.

11

The Court further finds that Exhibit 2 references client names. The Court understands that

12

client identities may, at times, qualify as confidential. However, there is nothing in Exhibit 2 or

13

otherwise stated in Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Under Seal supporting the conclusion that

14

the information in Exhibit 2 meet the standards for sealing records.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits

16

to Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Notice of

17

Deposition (ECF No. 330) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Group Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Reply shall remain sealed.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Reply shall remain temporarily

20

sealed.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any party to this dispute wishes to present additional

22

information to the Court seeking to justify sealing Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 328), such

23

party must do so within ten (10) days of this Order. If no additional information is provided by the

24

close of business on the tenth (10th) day following the date of this Order, Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’

25

Reply (ECF No. 328) shall be refiled by Plaintiffs unsealed.

26

DATED: April 30, 2020

27
28

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2