Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC

Filing 253

ORDER Granting #228 , #232 , #237 , and #246 Motions to Seal. The Clerk of the Court SHALL UNSEAL the moving papers incorrectly filed under seal, which do not contain confidential material: #227 Motion to Seal Unredacted Motion and Exhibits, #227 -3 Proposed Order, #237 Motion to Seal Unredacted Reply, #237 -1 Declaration, and #237 -2 Proposed Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 8 Plaintiffs, 9 10 11 Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL1 CUNG LE, et al., ORDER v. (Mots. to Seal – Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246) ZUFFA, LLC, d/b/a UFC ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP, Defendant. 12 13 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Motions to Seal (Dkt. #228, #232, #237, 14 #246). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and 15 LR IB 1-3 and 1-9 of the Local Rules of Practice. The Motions seek leave to file under seal 16 certain documents and exhibits referenced in the filings related to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Challenge 17 Privilege Designation (Dkt. #229) and the parties’ Joint Status Report (Dkt. #245). 18 This is an antitrust action and the Court has entered a Stipulated Protective Order 19 (Dkt. #217) governing documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties’ internal 20 business strategies and other sensitive information of a proprietary business nature. The subject 21 documents contain confidential information regarding Defendant Zuffa, LLC’s internal finances, 22 financial terms and incentives of contractual negotiations, and business strategies and analysis 23 and were filed under seal because Zuffa’s counsel designated the documents as “confidential” 24 pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. The parties have narrowly tailored their 25 sealing requests by filing redacted versions of the documents containing confidential 26 information. See (Dkt. #229, #240, #242, #244). 27 1 28 Member Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK; 2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF; 2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF; and 2:15cv-01057-JCM-CWH. 1 1 Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s 2 directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), 3 the Court finds that the parties have met their burden of establishing good cause for these 4 documents to remain sealed. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. Motions to Seal (Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246) are GRANTED. 7 2. The documents and exhibits referenced in the motions SHALL REMAIN UNDER 8 SEAL: Unredacted Motion to Challenge Revised Protective Order (Dkt. #227-4), 9 Sealed Exhibits (Dkt. #227-1, #227-2), Unredacted Response (Dkt. #231), Unredacted Reply (Dkt. #237-3), Unredacted Joint Status Report (Dkt. #245). 10 11 3. The Clerk of the Court SHALL UNSEAL the moving papers incorrectly filed under 12 seal, which do not contain confidential material: Motion to Seal Unredacted Motion 13 and Exhibits (Dkt. #227),2 Proposed Order (Dkt. #227-3), Motion to Seal Unredacted 14 Reply (Dkt. #237), Declaration (Dkt. #237-1), Proposed Order (Dkt. #237-2). 15 Dated this 12th day of May, 2016. 16 17 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 This filing was duplicative of the Motion to Seal (Dkt. #228). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?