Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Scientific Games Corporation et al

Filing 82

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 56 Plaintiffs' motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice. If Defendants would like these documents sealed, they must file a motion to seal by 3/9/2021 explaining, specifically, why good cause exists to seal these documents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 65 Defendants' motion to seal is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:20-cv-01637-GMN-BNW Document 82 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, et
al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

Case No. 2:20-cv-01637-GMN-BNW
ORDER

v.
Scientific Games Corporation, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
Before the Court are two motions to seal, ECF Nos. 56 and 65. Neither motion is opposed.

14
15

I.

Legal Standard

16

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

17

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly

18

accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

19

overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to

20

seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

21

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

22

public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal

23

quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full

24

presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached

25

documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the

26

case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

27

Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good

28

cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion that

Case 2:20-cv-01637-GMN-BNW Document 82 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3

1

are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n,

2

605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Nondispositive

3

motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and,

4

as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal

5

force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

6

1179).

7

II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 56)

8

Here, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF No. 56 seeks to seal the Declaration of R. Stephen

9

Berry and its exhibits offered in support of Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to compel

10

arbitration. This is related to a non-dispositive motion, and it is not more than tangentially related

11

to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the good cause standard applies to whether these

12

documents (a declaration and leases) should be sealed.

13

Plaintiffs seek to seal these documents because, Plaintiffs suggest, they have some

14

commitment to Defendants to seek to seal them. ECF No. 56 at 2. Plaintiffs state that “Defendants

15

assert that the leases contain their confidential and proprietary information possibly relating to

16

their pricing trends, licensing of intellectual property, etc.” Id. Plaintiffs further state that the

17

parties have not entered a protective order yet and depending on how Defendants designate these

18

documents once they do, the Court may wish to unseal them. Id.

19

Based on the argument provided, the Court does not find good cause exists to seal these

20

documents. It appears that Plaintiffs are operating out of an abundance of caution in seeking to

21

seal Defendants’ documents. However, Plaintiffs do not actually assert that the documents

22

contain confidential or proprietary information and explain, specifically, what such sensitive

23

information they contain. Accordingly, the Court will deny ECF No. 56 without prejudice. If

24

Defendants would like these documents sealed, they must file a motion to seal by March 9, 2021

25

explaining, specifically, why good cause exists to seal these documents. If no such motion is

26

filed, the documents will be unsealed.

27
28
Page 2 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-01637-GMN-BNW Document 82 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3

1
2

III.

Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 65)
Defendants’ motion to seal at ECF No. 65 seeks to seal exhibits filed in support of

3

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. These documents are

4

related to a dispositive motion and, therefore, the compelling reason standard applies to whether

5

these documents should be sealed. Defendants seek to seal these documents because they

6

“contain confidential business information on pricing and Defendants’ technology that, if

7

released, would harm Defendants’ competitive standing.” ECF No. 65 at 3.

8

The Court reviewed the documents at issue and finds that compelling reasons exist to seal

9

them. These documents contain sensitive business information that could be used for an improper

10

purpose if allowed to be in the public record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, the

11

Court will grant Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 65).

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 56) is DENIED

13

without prejudice. If Defendants would like these documents sealed, they must file a motion to

14

seal by March 9, 2021 explaining, specifically, why good cause exists to seal these documents. If

15

no such motion is filed, the documents will be unsealed.

16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 65) is
GRANTED.
DATED: February 16, 2021.

19
20

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3