First 100 LLC et al v. Omni Financial LLC et al

Filing 203

ORDER that 18 Motion to Seal Affidavit of Jay Bloom is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

FIRST 100 LLC; 1st ONE HUNDRED
HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

9

Case No. 2:16-cv-00099-RFB-(CWH)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
EX PARTE MOTION TO SEAL

v.

10
11

OMNI FINANCIAL, LLC;
PRENPOINCIANA, LLC; DOES I through X,

12

Defendants.

13
I.

14

INTRODUCTION

15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to seal the affidavit of Jay Bloom, Exhibit

16

“2” to its motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 16), filed January 27, 2016. ECF No. 18.

17

Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to seal on February 1, 2016. ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs

18
have not filed a reply to Defendants’ response.
19
Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court on January

20
21

15, 2016. ECF No. 1-1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on January 18, 2016. ECF

22

No. 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint contained four claims: breach of contract, unjust enrichment,

23

declaratory relief, and preliminary and permanent injunction. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiffs are

24
requesting that the affidavit of Jay Bloom, Exhibit “2” to their motion for preliminary injunction
25
26

remain sealed.

27

///

28

///

1

II.

2
3

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts have recognized the “general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

4
5

U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). The Ninth Circuit has noted there is a “strong presumption in favor of

6

access” to judicial documents. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

7

2006). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he public policies that support the right of

8

access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-

9

dispositive materials.” Id. at 1179. Plaintiffs need only show “good cause” under FRCP 26(c) to

10
11

keep records attached to non-dispositive motions sealed. Id. at 1180. Rule 26(c) states the court

12

may issue an order to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

13

burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

14
15
16
17

III.

ANALYSIS
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs argue that the affidavit contains confidential and

proprietary information regarding details of Plaintiffs’ business model as well as the valuation of

18
19

the HOA liens at issue in the case. ECF No. 18. Plaintiffs argue that they believe good cause

20

exists to warrant sealing the affidavit, but do not present further details about the content of the

21

document.

22
23

In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to provide any basis
that overcomes the “strong presumption” of public access. ECF No. 33. Further, Defendants

24
25

argue that sealing the affidavit would prevent the public from gaining access to information

26

related to assets that will be subject to a foreclosure sale, cutting against the transparency of the

27

foreclosure sale. Finally, Defendants argue that sealing the affidavit would lead to “unnecessary

28

logistical complications” that should be avoided.

-2-

1

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. While Plaintiffs have not

2

articulated with specificity what harm could come from the motion being made public,

3

Defendants mischaracterize this as a situation in which compelling reasons must be shown.

4
5

Because the affidavit is related to a non-dispositive preliminary injunction motion, Plaintiffs only

6

need to show “good cause” for sealing the affidavit. Protecting proprietary information from

7

public knowledge is sufficient under the stricter “compelling reasons” standard, and is therefore

8

sufficient in this instance in which the lower “good cause” standard applies. See, e.g.,

9

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (noting that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the

10
11

public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might

12

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade

13

secrets.’”).

14
15
16

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Seal Affidavit of Jay

17
Bloom (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.
18
19

DATED: September 29, 2016.

20

____________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-