Opinion
2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY
04-28-2023
NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC REAL ESTATE OF NEVADA, LLC Plaintiff, v. AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.; AVISON YOUNG USA INC.; AVISON YOUNG-NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE, THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP, JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES 1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 6 through 10, Defendants.
ORDER
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAHZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Seal Exhibits to, and Redact Sections of, Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Carlyn Irwin's Expert Testimony. ECF No. 656.
As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet its burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). Where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions ... do not apply with equal force ... .” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).
The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Further, a party “may not simply rely on the Stipulated Protective Order ... to justify sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) discussing and citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a showing of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992) (blanket stipulated protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of “good cause”).
The Court reviewed the Motion to Seal, the exhibits sought to be sealed, and the redactions. The Court finds Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Carlyn Irwin's Expert Testimony contain confidential and proprietary information that is properly sealed. The Court also finds the redactions in the publicly filed Motion are proper as they refer to the exhibits the Court agrees should be sealed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Seal Exhibits to, and Redact Sections of, Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Carlyn Irwin's Expert Testimony (ECF No. 656) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Carlyn Irwin's Expert Testimony and the Motion itself, found at ECF No. 655, are and shall remain sealed.