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)

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