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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00585-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. (Docket No. 133) 9 ARUZE GAMING AMERICA, INC., et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal their motion to 13 modify protective order at Docket No. 134. Docket No. 133. For the reasons stated below, the 14 Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. 15 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City 16 & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 17 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). To keep documents attached to non-dispositive motions 18 confidential, parties must make a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana, 447 19 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137). Any request to seal documents must be “narrowly 20 tailored” to the material that warrants secrecy. E.g., Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 21 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing PressEnterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1986)). 22 Thus, if confidential material can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful material available 23 to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire 24 documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in 25 Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of 26 redacting the sensitive material”). 27 Defendants submit that “the sole ground” for them moving for leave to file under seal their 28 motion to modify protective order is that Plaintiff has “designated [certain] documents and discovery responses as confidential under the Protective Order.” Docket No. 133 at 3. Defendants’ 2|| motion, however, seeks to seal their motion to modify protective order in its entirety, not just the 3}, relevant Exhibits. /d. at 2. Pursuant to the Court’s order at Docket No. 132, Plaintiff submitted a 4| notice regarding Defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal their motion to modify protective 5] order, submitting that only Exhibit B is properly filed under deal, and not Exhibits G or H. Docket 6|| No. 137 at 2. 7 Plaintiff submits that Exhibit B is properly sealed because: (1) it “contains information concerning the operations and internal governance of [Plaintiff's] Board of Directors;” (2) “No 9|| one outside of [those] Board of Directors has access to the exhibit;” (3) keeping it confidential 10] “provides for the free exchange of information, opinions and grievances between and among [the] 11 Board members;” (4) making it public “would restrict how [the] Board members communicate and 12|| what they communicate;” and (5) “restriction on the free flow of information within [the] Board 13] will ultimately negatively impact [Plaintiff] and its competitive position within its market.” 14] Docket No. 137-1 at 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to seal Exhibit 15] B to Defendants’ motion to modify protective order. The Court further finds good cause to redact 16] any part of Exhibit B that is “quote[d] from and/or summarize[d]” in Defendants’ motion to modify 17|| protective order. See Docket No. 133 at 2. 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion for 19] leave to file under seal their motion to modify protective order. Docket No. 133. No later than 20} January 6, 2020, Defendants shall file their motion to modify protective order on the public docket, 21} with a placeholder page in place of Exhibit B, which shall remain under seal. Further, Defendants shall redact from their motion any quote or summary of Exhibit B. The Clerk of Court is 23] INSTRUCTED to keep Docket No. 134 under seal. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 31, 2019 Zo 27 Unite Stace dgistrate Judge 28