Global Protection Corp. v. Thai Nippon Rubber Industry et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than May 16, 2024 Plaintiff must file a copy of its Motion for Leave to File Under Seal redacted but unsealed on the publicly accessible docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 5/10/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 GLOBAL PROTECTION CORP., 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. 2:24-cv-00871-JCM-EJY Plaintiff, ORDER v. THAI NIPPON RUBBER INDUSTRY; and TNR USA INC., Defendants. 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. ECF No. 3. The 11 Motion is itself filed under seal. No redacted version of the Motion to Seal is filed on the publicly 12 accessible docket in violation of LR IA 10-5(a). 13 Nevertheless, the Motion seeks to seal Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 3 at 3 14 referencing ECF No. 1, 1-4. Plaintiff asserts the exhibit consists of two invoices from Defendant 15 Thai Nippon Rubber Industry (“Thai Nippon”) to Defendant TNR USA Inc. containing business 16 financial details that might harm Thai Nippon’s business interests if filed unsealed. ECF No. 3 at 17 4. Plaintiff further contends that these invoices were designated confidential by Thai Nippon in a 18 separate trademark action. Id. at 2-4. 19 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendant must meet its burden of overcoming 20 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 21 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 22 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 23 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). 24 documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access 25 to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Id., 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). 26 The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 27 exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm 28 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 However, where a party seeks to seal Compelling reasons require a 1 demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for improper 2 purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, disseminate 3 libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 4 (1978). 5 information, and internal policies and procedures, a reviewing court may grant the motion to seal if 6 there are compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of the 7 information. Callahan v. PlusFour, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-2513 JCM (GWF), 2019 WL 302492, 8 at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2019), citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Specifically, regarding information touching on business agreements, proprietary 9 The Court reviewed the Motion to for Leave to File Under Seal as well as the Exhibit sought 10 to be sealed. The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion as the Exhibit contains proprietary business and 11 financial information. 12 13 14 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3-1) is and shall remain sealed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than May 16, 2024 Plaintiff must file a copy of its 17 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (ECF No. 3) redacted but unsealed on the publicly accessible 18 docket. 19 Dated this 10th day of May, 2024. 20 21 22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?