Miller Investment Trust v. KPMG

Filing 7

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/31/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

***
)
MILLER INVESTMENT TRUST and JURA )
LIMITED,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
KPMG, a Hong Kong Partnership,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:14-CV-00133-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Miller Investment Trust and Jury Limited’s (“Plaintiffs”)
Motion to File Complaint Under Seal. Doc. #2.1
As an initial matter, the Court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public

18

access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.

19

1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that

20

presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are

21

also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

22

(9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

23

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

24

disclosure.” Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)

25

(internal citations omitted).

26
1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint cites facts drawn from documents marked “Confidential” or

2

“Highly Confidential.” These documents were obtained by third parties and produced to Plaintiffs

3

pursuant to two protective orders. By designating these documents “Confidential” or “Highly

4

Confidential,” these third parties have represented that the documents contain information whose

5

public disclosure may cause them harm. Specifically, Plaintiffs reference documents that reveal

6

third-party internal business information and statistics, auditing practices and pricing information,

7

trade secrets, proprietary information, and internal financial information.

8
9

The Court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that
there are compelling reasons to seal the facts drawn from documents designated “Confidential” and

10

“Highly Confidential.” See Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053

11

EDL, 2010 WL 841274, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (finding that “there are compelling

12

reasons for sealing this [information] in light of the confidential nature of the information and the

13

competitive harm to third parties if the confidential information were disclosed”). Accordingly, the

14

Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of demonstrating compelling reasons for

15

filing their Complaint under seal.

16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (Doc. #2) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 31st day of March, 2014.

20
21
22

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
2