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 MOTIONS TO FILE 5 vs. UNDER SEAL (ECF Nos. 16, 19). 6 Fanmio Inc., et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are defendants’ Motion to File License Agreement Under Seal (ECF 9 No. 16) and Motion to File Certificate of Interested Parties Under Seal (ECF No. 19). For the reasons 10 stated below the Court GRANTS the Motions to File Under Seal. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Courts have recognized that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 14 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 15 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 16 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)). Because of this, unless a particular court record is one 17 “traditionally kept secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 18 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial 19 record must meet one of two standards. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-1102. 20 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion, the party must show that 21 there is a “compelling reason” to seal the document. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 667 22 (9th Cir. 2010). That is, the party seeking to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by 23 specific factual findings…that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 24 disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 25 citations and quotations omitted). “What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound 1 discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon 435 U.S. at 599) 2 (internal quotations omitted). However, courts have found compelling reasons to seal documents that 3 might otherwise become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 4 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, then the party need only 5 show that “good cause” exists. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. This is the same good cause standard that applies 6 to protective orders under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 7 1179-80. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking [to seal] bears the burden of showing specific 8 prejudice or harm will result[.]” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 9 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 II. ANALYSIS 11 Defendants seek to leave to file the license agreement and certificate of interested parties under 12 seal. See ECF Nos. 16, 19. The motion to seal the license agreement is attached to a motion to compel 13 arbitration (ECF No. 15). The motion to seal the certificate of interested parties is connected to a 14 requirement under Local Rule (“LR”) 7.1-1. Since the motions are attached to non-dispositive motions, 15 the “good cause” standard applies. 16 A. Motion To Seal Licensing Agreement 17 Defendants seek to file the license agreement under seal “because of the nature of the agreement, 18 which contains sensitive commercial terms of the parties’ relationship.” ECF No. 16 at 2:18-19. 19 Defendants argue that “[d]isclosure of the License Agreement’s terms would potentially harm the 20 Defendants’ bargaining in connection with future licenses.” Id. at 2:19-20. Courts have found that 21 confidential business information such as licensing terms, royalty rates, and proprietary business plans 22 satisfy the compelling reason. See e.g., ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Servs., 2024 U.S. 23 Dist. LEXIS 56169, at *17 (D. Nev. March 27, 2024) (collecting cases). The Court finds that both good 24 cause and compelling reason exists to seal the license agreement. Thus, the Motion to Seal License 25 Agreement (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. 1 B. Motion To Seal Certificate Of Interested Parties 2 Defendants seek to seal the certificate of interested parties because “investors invested in Fanmio 3 ||on a confidential basis” and “[d]isclosure...would potentially harm Fanmio by discrediting with future 4 || investors who desire to invest on a confidential basis.” ECF No. 19 at 2:20-24. Defendants argue that 5 || filing the certificate of interested parties under seal achieves the same result as filing it unsealed because 6 7.1-1 serves “primarily as a guide for the judge presiding over this case to determine whether 7 || disqualification or recusal is necessary.” ECF No. 19 at 2:18-20. Here, the Court finds that defendants 8 || have met the good cause standard. See S Valley View Twain v. Terracotta Credit Reit LLC, 2023 US. 9 || Dist. LEXIS 238522, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2023) (citing Guild Mortg. Co. LLC v. Crosscountry 10 || Mortg. LLC, No. C21-1376-JCC-MLP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237949, 2022 WL 18999842, at *6 11 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2022)) (finding that "concern about losing investors who fear public pressure not 12 || to invest in [] projects" to be "sufficient showing of potential injury" to justify sealing); see also Best 13 || Odds Corp. v. iBus Media Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156645, at * 5-5 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2014) (finding 14 || that sealing defendant’s disclosure will satisfy LR 7.1’s purpose and act as a prophylactic against 15 || potential litigation abuses). Thus, the Motion to Seal the Certificate of Interested Parties (ECF No. 19) is 16 || GRANTED. 17 ACCORDINGLY, 18 IT IS ORDERED that: 19 1. The Motion to Seal the Licensing Agreement (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. 20 2. The Motion to Seal the Certificate of Interested Parties (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 21 22 DATED this 18" day of September 2024. fo] 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. gor 24 Hin. inf. Coli i 35 United Statey Magistrate Judge