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

Filing 498

ORDER Granting 493 Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a publicly available Reply in support of its Objections that is redacted as stated on page 10 as described in their Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 9/24/2021. (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 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Redact Sections of Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’

15

Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Objection to July 28, 2021, Finding and

16

Recommendation Regarding Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 493).

17

No opposition to this Motion was filed.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy).

23

documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access

24

to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Kamakana, 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation

25

omitted). In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek to redact portions of a non-dispositive reply brief that

26

will be filed and available to the public.

However, where a party seeks to seal

27

The Court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and the portion of their Reply brief in support of an

28

objection filed to the Court’s July 28, 2021 Recommendation. The Court finds the redactions
1

1

Plaintiffs seek contain confidential and proprietary information the disclosure of which may lead to

2

misuse and harm to the parties.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Redact

4

Sections of Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Objection

5

to July 28, 2021, Finding and Recommendation Regarding Motion for Leave to File Third Amended

6

Complaint (ECF No. 493) is GRANTED.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a publicly available Reply in support
of its Objections that is redacted as stated on page 10 as described in their Motion to Seal.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2021.

10
11
12
13

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2