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

Filing 387

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 381 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal and Redact Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Supplement Brief shall remain sealed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 382 Defendants' Supplemental Brief, in its unredacted form, shall remain sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 6/8/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

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

Plaintiffs,

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 Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal and Redact

15

Portions of Defendants’ Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order

16

(ECF No. 381).

17

As explained in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006),

18

courts generally recognize a “right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

19

judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178 citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

20

597 & n. 7 (1978). This right is justified by the interest of citizens who “keep a watchful eye on the

21

workings of public agencies.” Id. As Defendants know, a party seeking to file a document under

22

seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana. A

23

party seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show

24

compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. Id. If a sealing order

25

is permitted, it must be narrowly tailored. Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside

26

Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 512 (1984). When a document is attached to a non-dispositive motion, which is

27

the case here, the “public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions … do not

28

apply with equal force . . ..” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). “Thus a particularized
1

1

showing, under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c), will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy

2

of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 (citations, quotation

3

marks and brackets omitted).

4

Here, Defendants demonstrate good cause for filing Exhibit 1 to their Supplement Brief

5

under seal. This exhibit contains highly confidential business information the public disclosure of

6

which could result in misuse that would harm Defendants. The Court further approves Defendants’

7

request to redact portions of their Supplemental Brief necessary to maintain the confidentiality of

8

information contained in Exhibit 1.
Accordingly,

9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal

11

and Redact Portions of Defendants’ Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

12

Protective Order (ECF No. 381) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Supplement Brief shall remain

13
14
15
16
17

sealed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, in its unredacted form
(ECF No. 382), shall remain sealed.
DATED: June 8, 2020

18
19
20

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2