Chapman v. Fertitta Entertainment Inc., et al
Filing
47
ORDER Granting Defendants' 37 Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 4 to their 36 Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
SALLIE SHANNON CHAPMAN,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FERTITTA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:15-cv-01944-JAD-GWF
ORDER
12
13
14
15
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 4 to Their
Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (ECF No. 37), filed on November 9, 2016.
On November 10, 2016, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 40) granting Defendants’ motion.
16
However, on November 28, 2016, the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for
17
Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to File Exhibit #4
18
Under Seal (ECF No. 41). That same day, the District Court granted the Stipulation. In accordance
19
with the Stipulation and Order, Plaintiff filed an Opposition (ECF No. 44) to Defendants’ Motion to
20
Seal on January 3, 2017. Defendants’ filed a Reply (ECF No. 46) on January 25, 2017. Because the
21
Court has already entered an Order granting Defendant’s motion, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s
22
opposition as a de facto motion for reconsideration.
23
Courts “possess the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory
24
order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of Los Angeles, Harbor
25
Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001). “A motion to reconsider must
26
provide a court with valid grounds for reconsideration by: (1) showing some valid reason why the court
27
should reconsider its prior decision and (2) setting forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
28
persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. U.S., 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D.Nev.
1
2003). “‘Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
2
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
3
intervening change in controlling law.’” Id. quoting School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v.
4
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also McGowan v. Credit Management, LP, 2015
5
WL 1886706, *3 (D.Nev. Apr. 23, 2015); See also Local Rule 59-1.
6
Defendants request leave to file Exhibit 4 to their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36)
7
under seal because is contains “confidential and proprietary business information concerning the
8
methods and manner in which it issues complimentary (“comps”) goods and services to certain guests
9
of the Golden Nugget.” Motion (ECF No. 37), 2:21–24. Plaintiff objects to the filing of Exhibit 4
10
under seal for several reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to safeguard Exhibit 4 by
11
discussing it during Plaintiff’s deposition and attaching it thereto. The deposition transcript (without
12
the exhibits) was subsequently attached to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also
13
asserts that it is “implausible that any potential guest of Defendant would look at Exhibit 4 and feel
14
slighted as argued by Defendant...” Opposition (ECF No. 44), pg. 4. In addition, Plaintiff argues that
15
“Defendant has not shown that its business records are any more secret or private than any other
16
relevant business records that are typically revealed in the course of litigation.” Id. at pg. 4. For these
17
reasons, Plaintiff believes that Defendants have not shown compelling reasons to seal Exhibit 4.
18
Upon review of Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendants’ reply, the Court stands by its prior
19
decision to seal Exhibit 4 to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As argued by Defendants, the
20
information contained in Exhibit 4 is confidential and proprietary business information, the disclosure
21
of which could allow Defendants’ competitors to have an unfair advantage by luring guests away with
22
comparable or greater value comps. This is akin to a trade secret that is typically information subject to
23
protection from disclosure. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th
24
Cir. 2006). Defendants’ interest in protecting their trade secrets outweighs the general public interest in
25
the public filings and Defendants have not waived the confidential and proprietary nature of Exhibit 4.
26
Accordingly,
27
...
28
...
2
1
2
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 4 to Their
Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (ECF No. 37) is granted.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.
4
5
6
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?