Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 51 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`* * *
`
`Allegiant Travel Company,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal its response to Defendant’s motion to stay
`
`discovery.1 ECF No. 47. Defendant responded at ECF No. 49.
`
`Plaintiff explains that while it does not believe there is a need to seal the response, it
`
`believes Defendant will argue otherwise. Indeed, Defendant maintains that the information in
`
`question is subject to a confidentiality agreement and that disclosure of this information would
`
`cause it competitive harm.
`
`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. 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).
`
`
`1 The unredacted and sealed version of Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is at ECF No. 46.
`Defendant filed a redacted version of the document at ECF No. 49-1.
`
`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 51 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Among the compelling reasons which may justify sealing a record are when such court
`
`files might have 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, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotation 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. “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.
`
`Here, although the response in question is related to a non-dispositive motion, it discusses
`
`many of the same issues discussed in the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In that sense, the
`
`document in question is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. As a
`
`result, 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 standard authorizing sealing by making a particularized showing
`
`why the document(s) or redacted portion thereof should be sealed. Parties “may not simply rely
`
`Page 2 of 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 51 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`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).
`
`As explained in previous orders, Defendant made a particularized showing regarding the
`
`need to seal the information in question. This showing meets the compelling reasons standard. As
`
`explained by Defendant, a failure to seal this information would cause it competitive harm. The
`
`information in question contains Defendant’s licensing strategy and includes 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. See, e.g., 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, Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 47 will be granted.
`
`I.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`IT IS THERERFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 47 is
`
`GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECF No. 46 under seal.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file the document at ECF No. 49-1
`
`on the docket as a stand-alone document and link it to its Motion to Stay Discovery within 10
`
`days of this Order.
`
`
`
`DATED: October 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRENDA WEKSLER
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 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
`
`
`
`