BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc. ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, and BGC 5 REAL ESTATE OF NEVADA, LLC, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. ORDER 8 AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.; AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON 9 YOUNG-NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE, THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP, 10 JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES 1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 11 6 through 10, 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Motion for 15 Leave to (1) Reopen Written Discovery to Issue Supplemental Interrogatories and Document 16 Requests Regarding Newly Discovered Evidence and (2) Depose Kimberly Krugman without 17 Reducing Their Allotted Deposition Time. ECF Nos. 452 and 453. No opposition to this Motion 18 was filed. 19 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming 20 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 21 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 22 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 23 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). However, where a party 24 seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the 25 right of access to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force … .” Kamakana, 417 F.3d 26 at 1179 (citation omitted). 27 The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, 1 || records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compellit 2 || reasons require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehic 3 || for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandi 4 || disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U. 5 || 589, 598 (1978). 6 The Court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Cot 7 || finds Exhibits 15, 18, 19, and 20 are properly sealed. The exhibits contain confidential ar 8 || proprietary information the disclosure of which may lead to misuse and harm to the parties. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to Seal Exhibi 10 |} to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to (1) Reopen Written Discovery to Issue Supplement 11 || Interrogatories and document Requests Regarding Newly Discovered Evidence and (2) Depo 12 || Kimberly Krugman without Reducing Their Allotted Deposition Time (ECF Nos. 452 and 453) a 13 || GRANTED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 15, 18, 19, and 20 to Plaintiff's Motion for Lea 15 || to Reopen Written Discovery and Depose Kimberly Krugman (ECF No. 451) shall remain sealed 16 17 DATED this 24th day of June, 2021. 18 2 20 Cowie). □□ 1 UNITED, J. YOUCH? H/ UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28