Cenegenics, LLC v. Healthgains ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Cenegenics, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00438-GMN-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 Healthgains, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Cenegenics moves to file certain documents under seal (attorney billing records 12 attached to its Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees and portions of the Murphey Affidavit that 13 reflect confidential negotiated billing rates). These documents are currently filed under seal at 14 ECF No. 43-1. The redacted version of these documents are filed at ECF No. 41-1. No opposition 15 to the motion to seal was filed. 16 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 17 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 18 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 19 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 20 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 21 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 22 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal 23 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 24 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 25 documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 26 case”. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 27 1 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good 2 |} cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion that 3 || are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 4 || 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Nondispositive 5 || motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and, 6 || as aresult, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal 7 || force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 8 || 1179). 9 Here, the motion in question is not dispositive and the sealed information is not more than 10 || tangentially related to the merits of the case. As a result, the good cause standard applies. The 11 || documents in question contain negotiated billing rates for Cenegenics’ attorneys, 12 || which is not information that is generally available to the public or to Cenegenics’ attorneys’ 13 || competitors. Disclosure could therefore harm Cenegenics’ ability to negotiate rates in the future, 14 || and disadvantage Cenegenics’ counsel in negotiating rates for work. Additionally, the billing 15 || records contain descriptions of the work performed by Cenegenics’ attorneys, which constitute 16 || confidential information and may contain confidential attorney work product. All these reasons 17 || constitute good cause for the sealing of these documents. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 42, 43) are 19 |} GRANTED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s exhibit at ECF No. 43-1 will remain sealed 21 || and that the exhibit at ECF No. 41-1 will remain as currently redacted. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for January 15, 2021 is VACATED. 23 DATED: December 1, 2020. 24 LK pm Lea WE ERA 25 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28