G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Fanmio Inc. ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, 2:24-cv-01279-JCM-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT 5 vs. (ECF NO. 22) and AMENDING PREVIOUS ORDER GRANTING SEALING (ECF No. 26) 6 Fanmio Inc, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Redact (“Motion”) (ECF No. 22). For 9 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Courts have recognized that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 13 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 14 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 15 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)). Because of this, unless a particular court record is one 16 “traditionally kept secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 17 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial 18 record must meet one of two standards. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-1102. 19 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion, the party must show that 20 there is a “compelling reason” to seal the document. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 667 21 (9th Cir. 2010). That is, the party seeking to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by 22 specific factual findings…that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 23 disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 24 citations and quotations omitted). “What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound 25 discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon 435 U.S. at 599) 1 (internal quotations omitted). However, courts have found compelling reasons to seal documents that 2 might otherwise become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 3 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, then the party need only 4 show that “good cause” exists. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. This is the same good cause standard that applies 5 to protective orders under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 6 1179-80. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking [to seal] bears the burden of showing specific 7 prejudice or harm will result[.]” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 8 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 II. ANALYSIS 10 Plaintiff seeks leave to file redact portions of their Opposition (ECF No. 23) to Defendant’s 11 Motion to Compel Arbitration. ECF No. 22. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions its 12 Opposition (ECF No. 23) to defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration that discusses the terms of the 13 Licensing Agreement at issue. Previously, the Court analyzed a similar request by defendants to seal the 14 Licensing Agreement and determined that the “good cause” standard applied to the pending motion to 15 compel arbitration. See ECF No. 26. Upon further consideration, the Court agrees with other authorities 16 in our District that the “compelling reason” standard applies to the parties’ requests to seal or redact the 17 Licensing Agreement in connection with the defendant’s Motion To Compel Arbitration. See Goodsell 18 v. Tchrs. Health Tr., No. 2:23-CV-01510-APG-DJA, 2023 WL 7015272, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2023) 19 (finding that a motion to compel arbitration is a dispositive motion for sealing purposes); AMA 20 Multimedia, LLC v. Borjan Sols., No. 15-CV-01673-JCM-GWF, 2016 WL 1572705, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 21 8, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 215CV1673JCMGWF, 2016 WL 1555717 (D. Nev. 22 Apr. 15, 2016) (motion to compel arbitration treated as a dispositive motion). 23 While the Court’s 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) previously found that sealing the Licensing 24 Agreement was appropriate under either the “good cause” and compelling reasons” standards, the Court 25 1 || amends that 09/18/24 Order here to clarify that the “compelling reasons” applies.'_ The parties agree 2 || that the Licensing Agreement contains confidential business information which would be harmful if 3 || publicly disclosed. Courts have found that confidential business information such as licensing terms, 4 || royalty rates, and proprietary business plans satisfy the compelling reason. See e.g., ImageKeeper LLC v. 5 || Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Servs., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56169, at *17 (D. Nev. March 27, 2024) 6 || (collecting cases). Therefore, the Court finds compelling reason exists seal the Licensing Agreement and 7 || to redact portions of the parties’ briefs which refer to the terms of that agreement. 8 9 ACCORDINGLY, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Redact (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) is AMENDED 12 || and that defendants’ Motion to File License Agreement Under Seal (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED under 13 || the “compelling reasons” standard. 14 J2A9 15 DATED this 25" day of September 2024. fo 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. for fv ‘\ TY i □□□ □□ United States Magistpate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||1 The Court is not revisiting or amending its 09/18/24 Order (ECF No. 26) with respect to the sealing of defendants’ Certificate of Interested Parties, which is non-dispositive.