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’ Motion for Leave to Redact Sections of Plaintiffs’ Reply in 15 Support of Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 532). 16 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming 17 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 18 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 19 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 20 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). However, where a party seeks to seal 21 documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access 22 to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Kamakana, 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation 23 omitted). 24 The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, 25 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. 26 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons 27 require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for 1 disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 2 589, 598 (1978). 3 The Court has reviewed the redacted and unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Reply, as well as 4 each of the Exhibits to which Plaintiffs’ instant Motion refers. The Court finds that references to 5 these Exhibits in the redacted portion of Plaintiffs’ Reply are references to confidential and 6 proprietary information, the disclosure of which may lead to misuse and harm to the parties. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Redact 8 Sections of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 532) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pages in Plaintiffs’ Reply that are redacted based on 10 reference to or the contents of Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions are 11 properly and shall remain redacted. 12 DATED this 28th day of October, 2021. 13 14 15 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27