Boston Dental Group, LLC v. Affordable Care, LLC

Filing 73

ORDER that 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will unseal these documents if no further motion to seal is filed by September 11, 2017. FURTHER ORDERED that 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

BOSTON DENTAL GROUP, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AFFORDABLE CARE, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:16-cv-01636-RFB-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 70, 71), filed on August
25, and 28, 2017. Plaintiff represents that these motions are unopposed.
Motions to seal are generally disfavored, in deference to the public’s “general right to inspect

13

and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v.

14

City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns,

15

Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)). Except for a narrow range of documents in criminal matters that have

16

traditionally been kept secret, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” for court records. Id.

17

The party which seeks to seal a court record bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Id.

18

When determining whether a record should be sealed, the court must attempt to balance the

19

competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal the record. Id. at 1179. When

20

attempting to balance these competing interests, the potential embarrassment, incrimination, or

21

exposure to further litigation do not by themselves constitute compelling reasons. Id. A court may

22

seal a record only upon a finding of “compelling reasons,” in the case of exhibits attached to

23

dispositive motions, or “good cause” for discovery materials. Id. at 1178-1179.

24

In its first motion to seal (ECF No. 70), Plaintiff moves to seal certain documents provided

25

by Defendant that it has attached to its replies in support of its motions for summary judgment (ECF

26

Nos. 37, 39, 40). Plaintiff represents that these documents have been marked as either “confidential”

27

or “attorney’s eyes only,” subject to the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff

28

provides no other specific information or argument as to why these documents should be sealed. The
1

1
2

Court does not find a compelling reason to seal these documents.
In its second motion to seal (ECF No. 71), Plaintiff moves to seal certain documents provided

3

by Defendant that it has attached to its response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF

4

No. 46), as well as an attachment to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

5

judgment (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff argues that these documents contain its own detailed financial

6

information, as well as information regarding Defendant’s confidential business practices, such as

7

service and lease agreements. Given the potential for misuse of such information, the Court finds

8

compelling reason to seal these documents.

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 70) is DENIED

10

without prejudice. The Court will unseal these documents if no further motion to seal is filed by

11

September 11, 2017.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED.

13

DATED: August 28, 2017

14
15

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2