Signify North America Corporation et al v. Lepro Innovation Inc. et al

Filing 148

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Seal (ECF No. 147 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Exhibit B, filed under seal at ECF No. 145, are and shall remain sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 8/28/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

SIGNIFY NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION and SIGNIFY
HOLDING B.V.,

6
7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:22-cv-02095-JAD-EJY

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
LEPRO INNOVATION INC., LE
INNOVATION INC., INNOVATION
RULES INC., HOME EVER INC., and
LETIANLIGHTING, INC.,
Defendants.

12

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal. ECF No. 147. Defendants seek to

13

seal its Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Exhibit B thereto (ECF 145) because these

14

documents contain highly confidential information. Id. at 2.

15

As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet its burden of overcoming

16

the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City

17

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to

18

maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of

19

showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). However, where a party seeks to seal

20

documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access

21

to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Id., 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted).

22

The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment,

23

incrimination or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records.

24

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons

25

require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for

26

improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

27

disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S.

28

589, 598 (1978).
1

1

The Court reviewed the Motion to Seal Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to

2

Compel and Exhibit B. The Court finds the Response and Exhibit B contain confidential and

3

proprietary information that are properly sealed. The Court also finds the redactions in the publicly

4

filed Response are proper as they refer to the Exhibit the Court agrees should be sealed.

5
6
7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 147) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and
Exhibit B, filed under seal at ECF No. 145, are and shall remain sealed.
Dated this 28th day of August, 2024.

10
11
12

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2