Wowo v. ITS Logistics, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 KEVIN WOWO, Case No. 3:24-cv-00061-ART-CSD 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v. 8 ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 Before the Court are Defendant’s motion to file exhibits in support of their 11 motion for summary judgment under seal (ECF No. 32), and Plaintiff's unopposed 12 motion to seal his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and 13 the attached exhibit (ECF No. 40). For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS 14 Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 32) and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 15 Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 40.) 16 I. Legal Standard 17 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings 18 and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); 19 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “[T]he 20 strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive 21 pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” 22 Kamakana, 447 at 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to overcome this 23 presumption with regards to a dispositive pleading or attachment thereto must 24 “‘articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by factual findings’ ... that outweigh 25 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 26 the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Id. at 1178-79 27 (quotations omitted). “‘[C]ompelling’ reasons sufficient to outweigh the public's 28 1 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 2 might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 3 1179 (citations omitted). 4 II. Analysis 5 In Defendant’s motion for leave to file exhibits in support of summary 6 judgment under seal, ITS states that Exhibits 2-10 to their motion for summary 7 judgment contain either the Sale and Purchase Agreement and Redemption 8 Agreement, (the “agreements”), or email communications discussing or attaching 9 said agreements. (ECF No. 32 at 2-3.) ITS states that these agreements contain 10 information which could damage ITS from a competitive perspective were it to be 11 publicly available. (Id. at 3-4.) ITS also argues that Exhibits 9 and 10 contain 12 release agreements that should be treated as confidential settlement agreements. 13 (Id. at 4-5.) 14 The Court finds that Defendant presents compelling reasons to file these 15 exhibits under seal. The exhibits at issue contain information regarding the 16 agreements, which contain details about ITS’s shareholder interest, corporate 17 structure, and share value. “Where the material includes information about 18 proprietary business operations, a company's business model or agreements with 19 clients, there are compelling reasons to seal the material because possible 20 infringement of trade secrets outweighs the general public interest in 21 understanding the judicial process.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, 22 LLC, No. 2:09-CV-01491-JCM, 2011 WL 1630338, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011). 23 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 32.) 24 Plaintiff argues that he inadvertently included information regarding the 25 same agreements in his opposition and the attached exhibit, and that for the 26 same reasons the Court should now seal this filing. (ECF No. 40.) Defendant does 27 not oppose this motion. (ECF No. 41.) While the Court agrees with this rationale, 28 the Court does not agree that Plaintiff’s entire opposition need be sealed. “Any 1 || request to seal must also be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from the public sphere 2 || only material that warrants secrecy.” Harper v. Nevada Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3 || 3d 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021) (citations omitted). “To the extent any 4 || confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful 5 || information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions 6 || be filed rather than sealing entire documents.” /d. (citations omitted). 7 As such, the Court will order the Clerk to seal the prior filing and directs 8 || Plaintiff to re-file a redacted version of the opposition and exhibit currently filed 9 || as ECF No. 36. 10 III. Conclusion 11 It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to file exhibits in support of 12 || their motion for summary judgment under seal (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. The 13 || documents filed under seal at [34] shall remain under seal. 14 It is also ordered that Plaintiffs unopposed motion to seal his opposition 15 |} and the attached exhibit (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 16 || PART. 17 The Clerk of the Court shall SEAL Plaintiff's opposition and the attached 18 || exhibit (ECF No. 36.) 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff REFILE A REDACTED VERSION of his 20 || opposition and the attached exhibit in accordance with the qualified protective 21 || order (ECF No. 29) by October 9, 2024. 22 23 Dated this 25tt day of September, 2024. 24 25 As ‘ posed dn 26 ANNE R. TRAUM 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28