Blue Sunsets LLC et al v. Kontilai et al

Filing 30

ORDER that 21 and 24 Motions to Seal are DENIED. The Clerk shall unseal ECF Nos. 10 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , and 26 . The Clerk shall also unseal this Court's order (ECF No. 23 ) granting the parties' stipulation to extend briefing deadlines. FURTHER ORDERED that 25 and 26 Stipulations to Extend Time are GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BLUE SUNSETS, LLC, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MYKALAI KONTILAI, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01418-JAD-CWH ORDER Presently before the Court are Defendant’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 21 and 24), filed on 11 June 16, 2017 and June 20, 2017, respectively. Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendant moves 12 to seal ECF Nos. 22, 25, and 26, which are stipulations by the parties to extend briefing deadlines in 13 this case. 14 In general, motions to seal are disfavored, as the courts have historically recognized the 15 public’s “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 16 and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 17 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)). Except for a narrow range of 18 documents in criminal matters that have traditionally been kept secret, there is a “strong presumption 19 in favor of access” for court records. Id. The party which seeks to seal a court record bears the 20 burden of overcoming this presumption. Id. In order to justify a restriction of the public’s access to 21 judicial records, courts must find either “compelling reasons” or “good cause” to seal, depending on 22 the type of record under consideration. Id. at 1178-1179. 23 Here, Defendant moves to seal stipulated extensions to briefing deadlines. Defendant 24 supports its motion to seal with a conclusory claim that it “needs to protect its highly sensitive and 25 confidential business model and proprietary information.” Mot. at 3 (ECF No. 24). However, the 26 stipulations contain nothing more than the names of the parties involved, their counsel, pending 27 deadlines, proposed deadlines, and an assertion that the parties are involved in settlement talks. 28 1 1 Similarly, Defendant’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 10, 21 and 24) are themselves filed under 2 seal. In these motions, Defendant does not provide any specific argument as to the need to file the 3 motions to seal under seal, but upon review, these motions contain nothing that could be reasonably 4 construed as confidential business records, trade secrets, or any other sensitive information. The 5 mere fact that a motion refers to the existence of sensitive information does not justify an order to 6 seal. The Court finds neither good cause nor any compelling reason to seal either the motions to seal 7 or the stipulated extensions. 8 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 21 and 24) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal ECF Nos. 10, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 26. 11 The Clerk shall also unseal this Court’s order (ECF No. 23) granting the parties’ stipulation to 12 extend briefing deadlines. 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ pending stipulations to extend briefing deadlines (ECF Nos. 25 and 26) are GRANTED. DATED: June 22, 2017 16 17 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?