Wowo v. ITS Logistics, LLC
Filing
43
ORDER - Defendant's motion to file exhibits in support of their motion for summary judgment under seal (ECF No. 32 ) is GRANTED. The documents filed under seal at 34 shall remain under seal. It is also ordered that Plaintiff's unop posed motion to seal his opposition and the attached exhibit (ECF No. 40 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court shall SEAL Plaintiff's opposition and the attached exhibit (ECF No. 36 ). It is further ordered that Plaintiff REFILE A REDACTED VERSION of his opposition and the attached exhibit in accordance with the qualified protective order (ECF No. 29 ) by October 9, 2024. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
KEVIN WOWO,
7
8
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Defendant.
10
12
Plaintiff,
ITS LOGISTICS, LLC,
9
11
Case No. 3:24-cv-00061-ART-CSD
Before the Court are Defendant’s motion to file exhibits in support of their
motion for summary judgment under seal (ECF No. 32), and Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to seal his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and
the attached exhibit (ECF No. 40). For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 32) and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 40.)
I.
Legal Standard
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings
and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978);
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “[T]he
strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive
pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.”
Kamakana, 447 at 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to overcome this
presumption with regards to a dispositive pleading or attachment thereto must
“‘articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by factual findings’ ... that outweigh
the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as
the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Id. at 1178-79
(quotations omitted). “‘[C]ompelling’ reasons sufficient to outweigh the public's
1
1
interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files
2
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
3
1179 (citations omitted).
4
II.
Analysis
5
In Defendant’s motion for leave to file exhibits in support of summary
6
judgment under seal, ITS states that Exhibits 2-10 to their motion for summary
7
judgment contain either the Sale and Purchase Agreement and Redemption
8
Agreement, (the “agreements”), or email communications discussing or attaching
9
said agreements. (ECF No. 32 at 2-3.) ITS states that these agreements contain
10
information which could damage ITS from a competitive perspective were it to be
11
publicly available. (Id. at 3-4.) ITS also argues that Exhibits 9 and 10 contain
12
release agreements that should be treated as confidential settlement agreements.
13
(Id. at 4-5.)
14
The Court finds that Defendant presents compelling reasons to file these
15
exhibits under seal. The exhibits at issue contain information regarding the
16
agreements, which contain details about ITS’s shareholder interest, corporate
17
structure, and share value. “Where the material includes information about
18
proprietary business operations, a company's business model or agreements with
19
clients, there are compelling reasons to seal the material because possible
20
infringement of trade secrets outweighs the general public interest in
21
understanding the judicial process.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures,
22
LLC, No. 2:09-CV-01491-JCM, 2011 WL 1630338, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011).
23
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 32.)
24
Plaintiff argues that he inadvertently included information regarding the
25
same agreements in his opposition and the attached exhibit, and that for the
26
same reasons the Court should now seal this filing. (ECF No. 40.) Defendant does
27
not oppose this motion. (ECF No. 41.) While the Court agrees with this rationale,
28
the Court does not agree that Plaintiff’s entire opposition need be sealed. “Any
2
1
request to seal must also be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from the public sphere
2
only material that warrants secrecy.” Harper v. Nevada Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp.
3
3d 1033, 1040–41 (D. Nev. 2021) (citations omitted). “To the extent any
4
confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful
5
information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions
6
be filed rather than sealing entire documents.” Id. (citations omitted).
7
As such, the Court will order the Clerk to seal the prior filing and directs
8
Plaintiff to re-file a redacted version of the opposition and exhibit currently filed
9
as ECF No. 36.
10
III.
Conclusion
11
It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to file exhibits in support of
12
their motion for summary judgment under seal (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. The
13
documents filed under seal at [34] shall remain under seal.
14
It is also ordered that Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal his opposition
15
and the attached exhibit (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
16
PART.
17
18
The Clerk of the Court shall SEAL Plaintiff’s opposition and the attached
exhibit (ECF No. 36.)
19
It is further ordered that Plaintiff REFILE A REDACTED VERSION of his
20
opposition and the attached exhibit in accordance with the qualified protective
21
order (ECF No. 29) by October 9, 2024.
22
23
Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.
24
25
26
27
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
3
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?