White Knuckle Gaming v. Electronic Arts

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 72 Motion for Leave to File Briefing Under Seal. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 6/29/17. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BRIEFING UNDER SEAL

v.
Case No. 1:15-cv-00150-JNP
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Defendant.

Before the court is Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
certain briefing related to a pending motion. (Docket No. 72). For the reasons stated below, the
court denies the instant Motion.
DISCUSSION
Under this District’s local rules, the “records of the court are presumptively open to the
public.” DUCivR 5-2(a). Thus, the court may order certain documents or pleadings be sealed
“only if the document or pleading, or portions thereof, are privileged or protected as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Id. (emphasis added). “The court
recognizes that on rare occasions, statutes, rules, and orders in specific cases may require
restriction of public access. On motion of a party and a showing of good cause, a judge may
order a case, a document, or a portion of a document filed in a civil case to be sealed.” Id.
However, the mere presence of “confidential information” in a document is insufficient
justification for filing that document under seal. See id. 5-2(a)(1).
Here, Defendant moves this court to seal its supplemental brief and accompanying
declaration in support of its Motion for Exceptional Case Finding and Award of Attorney’s Fees.

(Docket No. 51). However, Defendant has not provided the court with any basis under DUCivR
5-2(a) to justify the filing of this document under seal. Defendant has only stated that the
information regarding its “legal expenses in this matter are sensitive business information . . .
and have been maintained as confidential,” (Docket No. 72, at 2), and that counsel’s billing rates
are “strictly confidential and privileged,” (Id. at 3). The mere presence of allegedly “confidential
information” is insufficient to justify an order to seal in this case. See DUCivR 5-2(a)(1). Thus,
Defendant has failed to make a showing of “good cause” in this instance. Id.5-2(a).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Seal.
(Docket No. 72).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT

______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge

2