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

Filing 529

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 522 Defendants Motion for Leave to Redact Their Reply in Further Support of Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 10/18/2021. (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
15

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Redact Their Reply in Further Support
of Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 522).

16

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

17

overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring

18

disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)

19

(holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions

20

must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). However,

21

where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that

22

support the right of access to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Kamakana,

23

417 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
1

1

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

2

589, 598 (1978).

3

The Court has reviewed the redacted and unredacted version of Defendants’ Reply, as well

4

as each of the Exhibits to which Defendants’ instant Motion refers. The Court finds that references

5

to these Exhibits in the redacted portion of Defendants’ Reply are references to confidential and

6

proprietary business information, the disclosure of which may lead to misuse and harm to the parties.

7

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

8

Reply in Further Support of Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 522) is GRANTED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pages in Defendants’ Reply that are redacted based on

10

reference to or the contents of Exhibits A and B to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and Exhibit 3

11

to Plaintiffs’ Opposition shall remain redacted.

12

DATED this 18th day of October, 2021.

13
14
15
16

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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