UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`* * *
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
` ORDER re ECF Nos. 27, 30, and 32
`
`
`
`Allegiant Travel Company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 35 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are three motions to seal. ECF Nos. 27, 30, and 32.
`First is Defendant R2 Solutions LLC’s motion seeking to seal portions of its Motion to
`Dismiss.1 ECF No. 27. No opposition has been filed. As explained below, the Court will grant this
`motion.
`Next is a motion by Plaintiff Allegiant Travel Company seeking leave to file its Response
`to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under seal. ECF No. 30.2 Plaintiff explains it has reason to
`believe Defendant would argue it contains confidential information. ECF No. 30. Defendant
`responded with the reasons why the information in question is confidential and specified the
`portions they seek to be redacted. ECF No. 34. As explained below, the Court will grant this
`motion.
`Last is Defendant’s motion seeking to seal portions of its Reply in support of its Motion to
`Dismiss.3 ECF No. 32. While Plaintiff does not need to respond until August 18, 2022, the
`arguments in this motion are the same than those in connection with the two previous motions
`(ECF Nos. 27 and 30). For the same reasons that the Court will grant the motions at ECF Nos. 27
`and 30, the Court sees fit to grant this motion (ECF No. 32) without the need for a response from
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`1 The unredacted version of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the unredacted version of Exhibit C is filed at ECF
`No. 28.
`2 The sealed and unredacted version of Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is filed at ECF No. 29.
`3 The unredacted version of Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss is filed at ECF No. 33.
`1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 35 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`Analysis
`Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &
`Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly
`accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of
`overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to
`seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that
`outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the
`public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (alteration and internal
`quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full presumption
`of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached documents as well if
`the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
`Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).
`Among the compelling reasons which may justify sealing a record are when such court
`files might become a vehicle for improper purposes such as the use of records to gratify private
`spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Kamakana,
`447 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). However, avoiding a litigant’s embarrassment,
`incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
`records. Id.
`“[A] different standard applies to ‘private materials unearthed during discovery,’ as such
`documents are not part of the judicial record.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d
`at 1180). Under Rule 26(c), a court may enter a protective order “to protect a party or person from
`annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” “The relevant standard for
`purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed
`to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Pintos v.
`Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 655, 678 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
`omitted). Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good
`cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 35 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`“Nondispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause
`of action,’ and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply
`with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). It is
`within the court’s discretion whether to seal documents. Id. at 679.
`
`I.
`
`There are compelling reasons to redact portions of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
`and Exhibit C as referenced in the motion to seal at ECF No. 27.
`
`Defendant seeks to redact several lines on pages 10 through 12 of its Motion to Dismiss as
`well as the entirety of Exhibit C accompanying that motion. ECF No. 27 at 2.
`Because these documents are attached to a dispositive motion, the Court applies the
`compelling reason standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.
`While there is much discussion about the confidentiality agreement governing the materials
`sought to be sealed, the party who designates a particular document as confidential is still required
`to meet the legal standards authorizing sealing by making a particularized showing as to why the
`document(s) or redacted portion thereof should be sealed. Parties “may not simply rely on the
`Stipulated Protective Order . . . to justify sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Foltz
`v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003).
`Defendant has made a particularized showing as to the need to redact the information in
`question. This showing meets the compelling reasons standard. As explained by Defendant, a
`failure to redact this information would cause it competitive harm. That is because the redacted
`communications contain negotiations revealing its licensing strategy and include its selection of
`patents for discussion and claim charting. Courts have found that “confidential business
`information” in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing
`negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the compelling reasons standard. Exeltis USA Inc.
`v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, * 1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020).
`As a result, Defendant’s motion at ECF No. 27 is granted.
`
`//
`
`3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 35 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`II.
`
`There are compelling reasons to redact portions of Plaintiff’s Response to
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit A as referenced in the motion to seal at
`ECF No. 30.
`The Exhibit and the lines sought to be redacted in the Response to the Motion to Dismiss
`are detailed at Defendant’s reply (ECF No. 34 at 2).
`Because these documents are attached to a dispositive motion, the Court applies the
`compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.
`The same rationale that applied to Defendant’s motion to seal at ECF No. 27 applies here.
`As a result, Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 30 is granted.
`
`III. There are compelling reasons to redact portions of Defendant’s Reply in connection
`to its Motion to Dismiss as referenced in the motion to seal at ECF No. 32.
`
`The lines Defendant seeks to redact in the Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss are
`detailed at ECF No. 32 at 2.
`Because these documents are attached to a dispositive motion, the Court applies the
`compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.
`The same rationale that applied to Defendant’s motion to seal at ECF No. 27 and Plaintiff’s
`motion to seal at ECF No. 30 applies here. As a result, Defendant’s motion at ECF No. 32 is
`granted.
`IV. Conclusion and Order
`IT IS THERERFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 27 is
`GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to maintain under seal the motion and exhibits
`at ECF No. 28.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 30 is
`GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to maintain under seal the exhibits at ECF No.
`29.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file an unsealed response to Defendant’s
`Motion to Dismiss that redacts the portions of the response and Exhibit A as outlined at ECF No.
`34 at 2. This must be done within 10 days of this Order.
`
`4
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 35 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 32 is
`GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to maintain under seal the motion at ECF No.
`33.
`
`DATED: August 11, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRENDA WEKSLER
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`