Hollywood Citizen News Operating Company, LLC, et al v. Ten Five Hospitality LLC, et al

Filing 81

ORDER Re: 79 Status Report. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/13/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP
Dylan T. Ciciliano
Nevada Bar No. 12348
Email: [e-mail]
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
Jennifer S. Recine (pro hac vice)
Donald J. Reinhard (pro hac vice)
Sean M. Sigillito (pro hac vice)
Neena D. Sen (pro hac vice)
1633 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hollywood Citizen News
Operating Company, LLC and Hollywood Citizen
News F&B, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16
17
18
19

HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, and
HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS F&B,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TEN FIVE HOSPITALITY LLC, and DAN
DALEY,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01126-APG-DJA

JOINT
STATUS
REPORT
ON
DOCUMENTS SEALED PURSUANT TO
DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL (ECF
No. 58)

Defendants.
DAN DALEY, TEN FIVE HOSPITALITY
LLC and 1545 F&B MANAGER LLC,
v.

Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS F&B, LLC,
RELEVANT HOSPITALITY LLC, and
ZHAOXU CHEN a/k/a VINCENT CHEN,
Counterclaim Defendants.

28
Garman Turner Gordon
LLP
Attorneys At Law
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone]

1 of 4

1

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Hollywood Citizen News Operating Company,

2

LLC and Hollywood Citizen News F&B, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants and

3

Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Ten Five Hospitality LLC and Dan Daley (the “Defendants,” and,

4

together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), respectfully submit this Joint Status Report with respect

5

to issues raised in the October 10th, 2023 hearing concerning the Ten Five Parties’ Motion to

6

Seal (ECF No. 58) Exhibits B, C, and D to the Declaration of Dan Daley, which were filed

7

publicly in fully redacted form at ECF No. 57-2, and lodged under seal, in connection with the

8

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 57).

9

During the October 10th hearing, the Court instructed the Parties to confer about the

10

Motion to Seal, and, if the Parties believed that certain documents should be kept under seal, the

11

Court instructed Plaintiffs to provide their justification. Since the October 10th hearing, the

12

Parties have met and conferred regarding which of the sealed exhibits needed to remain under

13

seal, if any.

14

Plaintiffs have agreed that Exhibits B and D of ECF No. 57-2, which reflect

15

organizational charts for entities affiliated with Plaintiffs, may be unsealed. For the reasons set

16

forth below, Plaintiffs believe that Exhibit C of ECF No. 57-2 should be filed with a redaction to

17

a non-public operating agreement for Relevant Hospitality, and Defendants do not oppose

18

Plaintiffs’ re-filing Exhibit C of ECF No. 57-2 in that redacted form.

19

Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions are attached to this report as Exhibit A.

20

Plaintiffs request permission to file a redacted copy of Exhibit C to the Daley Declaration

21

(filed at ECF No. 57-2), which reflects the Operating Agreement for Relevant Hospitality, LLC

22

(the “Operating Agreement”), because it contains detailed and commercially sensitive

23

information. The information contained in the Operating Agreement is not publicly available

24

and is not of interest to the public. Given the sensitivity of the information and commercial

25

terms contained in the Operating Agreement, there are “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to

26

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447

27

F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

28

Courts in this District have ruled that compelling reasons exist to justify sealing records

Garman Turner Gordon
LLP
Attorneys At Law
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone]

2 of 4

1

that contain “sensitive business and financial information that may cause competitive harm if

2

unsealed.” Snap Lock Indus., Inc. v. Swisstrax Corp., 2021 WL 3082561, at *2 (D. Nev. July

3

21, 2021) (granting motions to seal documents “contain[ing] financial information,” documents

4

containing “confidential and proprietary information related to the marketing and sales” of

5

products, documents “contain[ing] sensitive advertising and marketing information” and

6

documents “contain[ing] business strategies”); Playup, Inc. v. Mintas, 2021 WL 5763557, at *1

7

n.2 (D. Nev. Dec. 3, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal a operations agreement because it

8

“contain[ed] commercially sensitive proprietary information regarding [movant’s] operations,

9

processes, and procedures with [movant’s] partners.”). The Operating Agreement is just such a

10

record, containing detailed information relating to how Relevant Hospitality is run, release of

11

which to the public would expose Relevant Hospitality to potential competitive harm.

12

On the other hand, the public has little interest in the redacted content of the Operating

13

Agreement, and any interest it does have is outweighed by Relevant Hospitality’s interest in

14

protecting its “proprietary business practices.” See Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures,

15

LLC, No. 2:09-CV-01491-JCM, 2011 WL 1630338, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (granting

16

motion to seal documents discussing “the parties’ business operations . . . [and] corporate

17

structure[.]”). Redacting the document to protect those particulars will in no way hamper “the

18

public’s understanding of the judicial process” as relates to any aspect of this trademark-

19

infringement action, not least the now-decided Motion to Stay or Dismiss, in connection with

20

which these documents were filed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks and

21

citations omitted).

22

Because compelling reasons exist to shield the sensitive business information in the

23

Operating Agreement from public disclosure, this Court should allow the Operating Agreement

24

to remain under seal and allow Plaintiffs to re-file the document with redactions.

25

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court’s permission to

26

re-file the Operating Agreement submitted as part of ECF No. 57-2 with the redactions proposed

27

at Exhibit A.

28

…

Garman Turner Gordon
LLP
Attorneys At Law
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone]

3 of 4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

1
2

Dated this 9th November 2023.

Dated this 9th November 2023.

3

GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

/s/ Dylan T. Ciciliano
Dylan T. Ciciliano
Nevada Bar No. 12348
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

/s/ Ross M. Bagley
V.R. Bohman
Nevada Bar No. 13075
Erin M. Gettel
Nevada Bar No. 13877
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

-andKASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
Jennifer S. Recine (pro hac vice)
Donald J. Reinhard (pro hac vice)
Neena Deb Sen (pro hac vice)
Sean M. Sigillito (pro hac vice)
1633 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-andPRYOR CASHMAN LLP
Todd E. Soloway (pro hac vice)
Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme (pro hac vice)
Ross M. Bagley (pro hac vice)
Nicholas G. Saady (pro hac vice)
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036-6569
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

18
19
20

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:

24
25
26
27
28
Garman Turner Gordon
LLP
Attorneys At Law
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone]

4 of 4

November 13, 2023