PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 PLAYUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket Nos. 387, 391] 9 DR. LAILA MINTAS, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a motion to redact and for partial in camera review filed by 12 PlayUp, Inc. and Daniel Simic.1 Docket No. 387. Mintas filed a response. Docket No. 389; 13 Docket No. 390 (sealed). PlayUp filed a reply. Docket No. 393. Also pending before the Court 14 is Mintas’ related motion to seal. Docket No. 391. PlayUp filed a response. Docket No. 394. 15 Mintas filed a reply. Docket No. 396. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See 16 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions are both GRANTED. 17 I. STANDARDS2 18 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 19 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Parties seeking to keep secret from the 20 public documents filed in relation to non-dispositive matters must make a “particularized showing” 21 of “good cause.” Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 22 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to keep secret from the public documents filed in relation 23 to dispositive matters must show “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 24 in disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Under either standard, secrecy of judicial filings may 25 be appropriate when the records could become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 26 27 1 The Court will refer herein to PlayUp, Inc. and Simic collectively as “PlayUp.” 28 2 As the parties are familiar with the background, the Court will not provide one herein. 1 the records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 2 trade secrets. Id. In considering whether to permit secrecy, courts also weigh relevant factors, 3 including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 4 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2010). Any request to seal must be “narrowly tailored” 5 to remove from the public sphere only material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, 6 LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021) (citing Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 7 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). 8 An in camera submission impedes not only the public’s right to access judicial filings, but 9 also the adversarial process through which courts function best. See Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 10 972, 979 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Doyle v. F.B.I., 722 F.2d 554, 556 (9th Cir. 1983) (providing 11 overview of the “danger inherent” in relying on ex parte, in camera submissions). Given these 12 concerns, requests for in camera submission are disfavored. Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil 13 Co., 157 F.R.D. 691, 700 (D. Nev. 1994). A request for in camera review must be supported by 14 “compelling reasons,” which is a stringent standard that is not easily met. Cf. Maxson v. Mosaic 15 Sales Sols. U.S. Op’g Co., 2015 WL 4661981, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015).3 Compelling reasons 16 may be established by showing that revealing the subject information to the opposing party and to 17 the public would irreparably harm the movant. See, e.g., Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 18 506 F.2d 532, 540 (2d Cir. 1974) (addressing trade secret material). 19 II. ANALYSIS 20 The instant motions arise out of the circumstances of counsel’s withdrawal and subsequent 21 reappearance on behalf of PlayUp, which resulted in issuance of two orders to show cause. Docket 22 Nos. 337, 343. The Court has resolved those orders to show cause on the public docket, including 23 providing certain factual details for which secrecy is not warranted. See Docket No. 378; see also 24 Docket No. 379. PlayUp and its counsel have also themselves disclosed some of the pertinent 25 3 A request for in camera review is seeking three forms of relief: (1) keeping information 26 secret from the public, (2) keeping information off the official docket, and (3) keeping information secret from the opposing counsel and party. Hence, the analysis of the propriety of in camera 27 treatment properly incorporates the standards for sealing (i.e., keeping information secret from the public) and the standards for ex parte submissions (i.e., filings made without notice to the opposing 28 side). See, e.g., Local Rule IA 7-2(a). 1 information on the public docket. See, e.g., Docket No. 342-2 at 3 (notice of attorney’s lien). After 2 the Court denied the prior requests for secrecy as overly broad, see Docket No. 379, PlayUp has 3 proposed much more limited redactions in conjunction with its renewed request for redaction and 4 in camera treatment, see Docket No. 387 at 3. Hence, the Court notes at the outset that the public 5 and Mintas have significant access to information to understand the judicial process as it relates to 6 the orders to show cause. Cf. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n.6. 7 With respect to the reason secrecy is sought, PlayUp attests that some of the information 8 relates to the granular details of the attorney-client relationship that was shared in confidence. See, 9 e.g., Docket No. 387-1. PlayUp also attests that some of the information, including from board 10 minutes, is proprietary and its release would cause competitive disadvantage. See, e.g., Docket 11 No. 387-2.4 PlayUp also argues that such information is not pertinent to the claims and defenses 12 in the case, and that there is no need for the public or Mintas to know such information. See, e.g., 13 Docket No. 393 at 4. The Court agrees with PlayUp that sufficient justification has been shown 14 for secrecy of this information. 15 Accordingly, the Court finds that a sufficient showing for secrecy has been made and, 16 particularly in light of the much more limited redactions now sought, that an appropriate balance 17 has been reached to protect the interests of all involved. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS PlayUp’s motion to redact and for 20 partial in camera review. Docket No. 387. It appears that PlayUp submitted its proposed 21 redactions in camera only, see Docket No. 387-1 at 8-10; see also Docket No. 389 at 2, so PlayUp 22 must file a notice attaching these materials (with the now-approved redactions) on the public 23 24 25 26 27 4 Mintas challenges this assertion in light of evolving circumstances of PlayUp’s business. Docket No. 389 at 5-6. Given the attestation under penalty of perjury of competitive disadvantage, 28 however, the Court credits Simic’s declaration on these issues. See Docket No. 387-2. 1] docket by February 14, 2024.° The Court also GRANTS the related motion to seal. Docket No. 391. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 30, 2024 5 7. A — Nancy J. K 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26) ———______ > This notice must also attach in unredacted form any other material for which secrecy is no longer sought, such as the earlier declaration of Amanda Brookhyser. See Docket No. 387 at 3 n.2 (“The Court also considered in camera the Declaration of Amanda J. Brookhyser, but we are 28] not seeking continued in camera submission or sealing of that Declaration’).