Emerson et al v. TMBC, LLC. et al

Filing 33

ORDER Clerk directed to SEAL ECF No. 18 TMBC Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. By 09/30/2016 TMBC Defendants shall REFILE a redacted version of Motion ECF No. 18 omitting the sealed exhibit and LINK the new filing to their original Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 09/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

JAMES ELVIS EMERSON and SYLVIA
EMERSON,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:16-cv-01229-MMD-PAL

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
ARCTIC CAT SPORT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13

This matter is before the court on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ECF

14

No. 31) filed by Defendants TMBC, LLC, Reiner R. Hall, and Lauren Pastor (jointly, the

15

“TMBC Defendants”) in response to the court’s August 26, 2016 Order (ECF No. 29). The court

16

instructed the parties to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting

17

declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing as to why a contract should remain

18

under seal. The dealer agreement between Defendants TMBC, LLC, and Arctic Cat, Inc. is

19

attached to the TMBC Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Answer to Assert a Third-

20

Party Claim Against Arctic Cat Sales, Inc. (ECF No. 18) as Exhibit B.

21

The TMBC Defendants assert that the dealer agreement contains confidential and

22

proprietary commercial information that, if publically disclosed, would enable their competitors

23

to use such information to gain an unfair commercial advantage. The TMBC Defendants further

24

argue that public disclosure of the dealer agreement would give third-parties an unfair

25

opportunity to interfere with the current business relationship between TMBC and Arctic Cat.

26

Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s directives set

27

forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its

28

progeny, the court finds that the TMBC Defendants have met their burden of establishing good
1

1

cause for the dealer agreement to be sealed. However, because the TMBC Defendants did not

2

properly file the exhibits to the Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (ECF No. 18), the court

3

cannot direct the docketing clerks to simply seal the dealer agreement and leave the remainder of

4

the filing unsealed. The court will therefore instruct the Clerk of the Court to seal the entirety of

5

the Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (ECF No. 18) and the TMBC Defendants shall refile a

6

redacted version of their Motion omitting the sealed exhibit. All future filings, including the

7

redacted motion, must comply with the Local Rules of Practice and the correct CM/ECF filing

8

procedures. See Order (ECF No. 29).

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

1. The Clerk of the Court shall SEAL the TMBC Defendants’ Motion for Leave to

12

Amend Answer (ECF No. 18).

13

2. By September 30, 2016, the TMBC Defendants shall REFILE a redacted version of

14

their Motion omitting the sealed exhibit and LINK the new filing in CM/ECF to their

15

original Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (ECF No. 18).

16
17
18

3. All future filings, including the redacted motion, must comply with the Local Rules
of Practice and the correct CM/ECF filing procedures.
Dated this 23rd day of September, 2016.

19
20
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2