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

Filing 610

ORDER Granting 608 Motion to Seal to Seal Exhibits toPlaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 9/21/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 610 Filed 09/21/22 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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiffs’

15

Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)

16

and 37(d) and for Continuation of 30(b)(6) Depositions. ECF No. 608.

17

As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet its 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). Where a party seeks to seal documents

22

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

23

dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force … .” Id. 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

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 610 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

589, 598 (1978). Further, a party “may not simply rely on the Stipulated Protective Order … to

3

justify sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No.

4

2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) discussing and citing

5

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a

6

showing of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992)

7

(blanket stipulated protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of

8

“good cause”).

9

The Court reviewed the Motion to Seal as well as the exhibits sought to be sealed and

10

redacted. The Court finds Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 9 to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’

11

Motion for Sanctions are properly sealed as they contain confidential and proprietary information.

12

The Court also finds the redactions in Exhibit 6 to Plaintiffs’ Response contain confidential and/or

13

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

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Seal Exhibits to

15

Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

30(d)(2) and 37(d) and for Continuation of 30(B)(6) Depositions (ECF No. 608) is GRANTED.

17
18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 9 to Plaintiffs’ Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 607) shall remain sealed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 6 of Plaintiffs’ publicly filed Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 606) shall remain redacted.

21
22

Dated this 21st day of September, 2022.

23
24
25

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2