Acclaim Lighting, Inc. v. Bruck et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Seal; ORDER granting 33 Motion to Seal; Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

ACCLAIM LIGHTING, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT BRUCK,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00147-RFB-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits H, I, and J to the

15

Declaration of Robert Bruck in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgmet (ECF No. 32),

16

filed on February 7, 2018. Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits A and F to the

17

Declaration of Marc Karish in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33),

18

filed on February 7, 2018.

19

Defendants request leave to file Exhibits A and F to the declaration of Mark Karish and Exhibits

20

H, I, and J to the declaration of Robert Bruck in support of their motion for summary judgment. The

21

exhibits contain sensitive product and customer information constituting trade secrets. The Ninth

22

Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial files and records in

23

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). There, the court recognized

24

that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials produced during discovery and

25

materials attached to dispositive motions. The Kamakana court held that a “good cause” showing is

26

sufficient to seal documents produced during discovery. Id. at 1180. However, the Kamakana

27

decision also held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is needed to support the secrecy of

28

documents attached to dispositive motions. A showing of “good cause” does not, without more, satisfy

1

the “compelling reasons” test required to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive

2

motions. Id.

3

Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s

4

interests in disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private

5

spite, permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179 (internal

6

quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

7

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court

8

to seal its records.” Id., citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122,

9

1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to dispositive motions, a party is required

10

to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continuing secrecy and show that these

11

specific interests overcome the presumption of public access by outweighing the public’s interests in

12

understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court

13

finds that Defendants met their burden and, therefore, grants their request to file Exhibits A and F to the

14

declaration of Mark Karish and Exhibits H, I, and J to the declaration of Robert Bruck in support of

15

their motion for summary judgment under seal. Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits H, I, and J to the

17

Declaration of Robert Bruck in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgmet (ECF No. 32) is

18

granted.

19
20
21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits A and F to the Declaration
of Marc Karish in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is granted.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2018.

22
23
24

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2