G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Fanmio Inc. et al
Filing
27
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Redact (ECF No. 22 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26 ) is AMENDED and that defendants' Motion to File License Agreement Under Seal (ECF No. 16 ) is GRANTED under the "compelling reasons" standard. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 9/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC,
Plaintiff(s),
4
5
vs.
6
Fanmio Inc, et al.,
7
8
9
12
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT
(ECF NO. 22) and AMENDING PREVIOUS
ORDER GRANTING SEALING (ECF No. 26)
Defendant(s).
Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Redact (“Motion”) (ECF No. 22). For
the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
DISCUSSION
10
11
2:24-cv-01279-JCM-MDC
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts have recognized that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records
13
and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,
14
809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597,
15
98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)). Because of this, unless a particular court record is one
16
“traditionally kept secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v.
17
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial
18
record must meet one of two standards. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-1102.
19
If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion, the party must show that
20
there is a “compelling reason” to seal the document. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 667
21
(9th Cir. 2010). That is, the party seeking to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by
22
specific factual findings…that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
23
disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
24
citations and quotations omitted). “What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound
25
discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon 435 U.S. at 599)
1
(internal quotations omitted). However, courts have found compelling reasons to seal documents that
2
might otherwise become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
3
If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, then the party need only
4
show that “good cause” exists. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. This is the same good cause standard that applies
5
to protective orders under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
6
1179-80. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking [to seal] bears the burden of showing specific
7
prejudice or harm will result[.]” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
8
1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002).
9
II. ANALYSIS
10
Plaintiff seeks leave to file redact portions of their Opposition (ECF No. 23) to Defendant’s
11
Motion to Compel Arbitration. ECF No. 22. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions its
12
Opposition (ECF No. 23) to defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration that discusses the terms of the
13
Licensing Agreement at issue. Previously, the Court analyzed a similar request by defendants to seal the
14
Licensing Agreement and determined that the “good cause” standard applied to the pending motion to
15
compel arbitration. See ECF No. 26. Upon further consideration, the Court agrees with other authorities
16
in our District that the “compelling reason” standard applies to the parties’ requests to seal or redact the
17
Licensing Agreement in connection with the defendant’s Motion To Compel Arbitration. See Goodsell
18
v. Tchrs. Health Tr., No. 2:23-CV-01510-APG-DJA, 2023 WL 7015272, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2023)
19
(finding that a motion to compel arbitration is a dispositive motion for sealing purposes); AMA
20
Multimedia, LLC v. Borjan Sols., No. 15-CV-01673-JCM-GWF, 2016 WL 1572705, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb.
21
8, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 215CV1673JCMGWF, 2016 WL 1555717 (D. Nev.
22
Apr. 15, 2016) (motion to compel arbitration treated as a dispositive motion).
23
24
25
While the Court’s 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) previously found that sealing the Licensing
Agreement was appropriate under either the “good cause” and compelling reasons” standards, the Court
1
amends that 09/18/24 Order here to clarify that the “compelling reasons” applies. 1 The parties agree
2
that the Licensing Agreement contains confidential business information which would be harmful if
3
publicly disclosed. Courts have found that confidential business information such as licensing terms,
4
royalty rates, and proprietary business plans satisfy the compelling reason. See e.g., ImageKeeper LLC v.
5
Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Servs., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56169, at *17 (D. Nev. March 27, 2024)
6
(collecting cases). Therefore, the Court finds compelling reason exists seal the Licensing Agreement and
7
to redact portions of the parties’ briefs which refer to the terms of that agreement.
8
ACCORDINGLY,
9
10
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Redact (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) is AMENDED
12
and that defendants’ Motion to File License Agreement Under Seal (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED under
13
the “compelling reasons” standard.
14
15
DATED this 25th day of September 2024.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___ _____________________
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Court is not revisiting or amending its 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) with respect to the sealing of
defendants’ Certificate of Interested Parties, which is non-dispositive.
1
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?