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