Universal Entertainment Corporation v. Aruze Gaming America, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00585-RFB-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 13 v. 14 ARUZE GAMING AMERICA, INC., et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 17 On August 14, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated protective order. Docket No. 18 38. Pending before the Court is a motion for leave to file under seal the motion to modify the 19 protective order in this case. Docket Nos. 128, 129. This order reminds counsel that there is a 20 presumption of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential 21 document under seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives 22 in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under 24 seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the 25 Court under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those 26 documents under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a). 27 The Court approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But 28 there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are 1} secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or 2|| concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret 3], or other confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an 4| identifiable and significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the 7|| presumption of public access. See Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to 9] overcome the presumption of public access. Jd. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the 10] applicable standard and explain why that standard has been met. The fact that a court has 11} entered a blanket stipulated protective order and that a party has designated a document as 12} confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds 13] to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th 14] Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992), 15 If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated a document as confidential, the designator shall file (within seven days of the filing of 17|| the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification for sealing each 18] document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If 19} neither filing is made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further notice. 20 IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10- 21} 5, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the stipulated protective order may conflict with this order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is hereby superseded with this order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 16, 2019 28 nite States ‘a gistrate Judge