Scientific Games Corporation et al v. AGS, LLC
Filing
33
ORDER re 17 Motion to Seal. IT IS ORDERED that the Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerks Office to keep the subject documents sealed for the time being. No later than 3/27/17, Petitioners shall submit a supplemental brief with particularized r easons showing good cause for sealing the documents or portions of documents Petitioners ask the Court to seal, and supported by a declaration or other competent evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/21/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, et al.,
12
Plaintiff(s),
13
vs.
14
AGS LLC,
15
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-00343-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 17)
16
17
On February 1, 2017, Petitioners filed a motion to seal, which the Court denied without
18
prejudice on February 16, 2017 for failure to include points and authorities. Docket Nos. 3, 13. On
19
February 22, 2017, Petitioners filed a renewed motion to seal, which is now pending before the
20
Court. Docket No. 17. No response was filed. See Docket.
21
I.
STANDARDS
22
The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial
23
records. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v.
24
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file
25
documents under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
26
Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178).
27
The standard applicable to a motion to seal turns on whether the sealed materials are
28
submitted in conjunction with a dispositive, or a non-dispositive motion. Whether a motion is
1
“dispositive” turns on “whether the motion at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying
2
cause of action.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.),
3
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016).
4
Parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive
5
motions must make a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180
6
(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137). This requirement derives from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7
26(c), under which “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
8
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
26(c)(1)). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,
10
do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir.
11
1992) (internal citation omitted).
12
On the other hand, parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to
13
dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support
14
secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Those compelling reasons must outweigh the competing
15
interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial process.
16
Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”
17
including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process”).
18
Lastly, to the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving
19
meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed
20
rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also In re Roman Catholic
21
Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep
22
in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”).
23
II.
ANALYSIS
24
The pending motion seeks to seal Petitioners’ motion to compel, as well as exhibits 5, 7, 8,
25
9, 10, and 12, and Petitioners’ reply in support of the motion to compel. See Docket No. 17 (motion
26
to seal); Docket No. 1 (motion to compel and exhibits); Docket No. 15 (reply in support of motion
27
28
2
1
to compel). The Court reviews this motion under the good cause standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d
2
at 1185-86; 3B Med., Inc. v. Resmed Corp., 2016 WL 6818953, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016)
3
(applying the good cause standard in the context of a motion to compel related to an underlying
4
action in a different district).
5
Petitioners ask the Court to seal the documents at issue because they reference information
6
covered by a stipulated protective order in an underlying action in the Northern District of Illinois.
7
Docket No. 17 at 3. Petitioners contend that, because that information is covered by a stipulated
8
protective order, the documents at issue “may contain trade secrets and other sensitive, non-public
9
business secrets or plans.” Id.
10
The mere existence of a stipulated protective order is insufficient to justify sealing. See
11
Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476 (internal citation omitted) (“In the instant case, the parties stipulated to
12
a blanket protective order. Reliance will be less with the blanket order, because it is by nature
13
overinclusive . . . [B]ecause the protective order was a stipulated blanket order, International never
14
had to make a ‘good cause’ showing . . . in the first place”). Moreover, the broad assertion that all
15
of the documents “may” contain trade secrets or other sensitive information falls far short of
16
satisfying the Ninth Circuit’s requirement of a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See
17
Kamakana, 446 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).
18
In addition, the pending motion seeks to seal in their entirety several exhibits to the motion
19
to compel, without explaining why redaction is not proper instead. The Court also notes that instead
20
of filing the exhibits as separate attachments, Petitioners initially filed their motion to compel and
21
all of its exhibits under seal, as one document. See Docket No. 1 at 24-173. Thus, even the exhibits
22
that Petitioners contend should be public have been filed under seal.
23
III.
CONCLUSION
24
The motion to seal as currently presented fails to satisfy the good cause standard. Petitioners
25
provide conclusory statements regarding the need for secrecy without articulating the harm that
26
would arise from disclosure, and fail to explain why redaction of certain documents is not possible.
27
28
3
1
The Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to keep the subject documents sealed for the time
2
being.
3
particularized reasons showing good cause for sealing the documents or portions of documents
4
Petitioners ask the Court to seal, and supported by a declaration or other competent evidence. For
5
the documents that Petitioners ask the Court to seal in their entirety, Petitioners must explain why
6
redaction of those documents is not possible.
No later than March 27, 2017, Petitioners shall submit a supplemental brief with
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
DATED: March 21, 2017.
9
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?