Bass Underwriters, Inc. v. Kono

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 KNaervla Oda. RBialre yN, oE. s1q2. 077 2 COZEN O’CONNOR, P.C. 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 200 3 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 470-2330 4 Facsimile: (702) 470-2370 koriley@cozen.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff Bass Underwriters, Inc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 Bass Underwriters, Inc.; Case No.: 2:22-cv-00138-RFB-EJY 9 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 10 TO FILE UNDER SEAL vs. 11 12 David Kono. 13 Defendant. 14 Under Local Rule IA 10-5 and the Protective Order (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff Bass 15 Underwriters, Inc. (“Bass”), moves the court for an order sealing Exhibits 12 and 13 attached to its 16 reply in support of its motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint and to continue the discovery 17 period. Pursuant to the protective order (ECF No. 21) in this case, these exhibits are demarcated 18 “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” on the bottom of each page. The exhibits relate to 19 David Kono’s theft of confidential and trade secret information. Bass redacted the relevant 20 information in the brief of the Reply, and seeks the exhibits be sealed in their entirety as redaction 21 is infeasible. Special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 22 prosecution of this action appears to be warranted for this document. 23 Dated: January 27, 2023. Cozen O’Connor 24 By: /s/ Karl O. Riley_____________ 25 KARL O. RILEY, Nevada Bar No. 12077 26 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169 27 Telephone: (702) 470-2330 Facsimile: (702) 470-2370 28 koriley@cozen.com 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 This case arises out of David Kono’s theft of certain confidential and trade secret 4 information. To properly file a reply in support of its motion to amend the complaint and to continue 5 the discovery period, Bass includes certain communications between the relevant parties 6 II. CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION OF MAGELLAN 7 SHOULD BE SEALED 8 “[T]he common law right of access is not absolute.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. 9 Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). For non-dispositive 10 motions, a party may seek to seal material under a standard of “good cause” similar to the 11 standard for an order of protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Diamond 12 X Ranch LLC v. Atl. Richfield Co., No. 13-cv-00570, 2016 WL 3176577 at *2 (D. Nev. June 13 3, 2016). When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court, in its discretion, 14 balances the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal the records. In 15 re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119; see also Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 16 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 17 These exhibits discuss Brooks’s recruitment of Kono, which Kono concurrently or 18 subsequently began to steal Bass’s confidential and trade secrets. Accordingly, there is a 19 compelling reason to seal these documents in order to avoid the disclosure of confidential 20 and private information. As such, under the protective order, Zurich respectfully requests 21 that this Court grant its motion to seal the above trial exhibits pending trial. 22 II. THE REQUEST TO SEAL IS LIMITED IN SCOPE AND NARROWLY TAILORED 23 Bass is not requesting the wholesale sealing of its Motion. These two exhibits 24 identified by Bass may contain discussion of its confidential and trade secret information 25 that should not be disclosed to the public until trial in this matter. The proposed sealing 26 sought by Bass is, thus, narrowly tailored, while still appreciating the presumption of access 27 to court records. 28 /// 1/1. REDACTION IS INFEASIBLE 2 Bass redacted all references to the confidential information in the Reply until the Court rules on this Motion. In an abundance of caution, Bass removed all exhibits for the same reason. CONCLUSION 5 Bass has served an unredacted copy of the Reply and all exhibits via email and has mailed a 6|| copy in paper form under LR IA 10-5(d). For these reasons, Bass respectfully requests that the 7|| Court grant its motion to seal Exhibits 12 and 13 in the Reply and any related redactions. Dated: January 27, 2023. Cozen O’Connor 9 By: /s/ Karl O. Riley KARL O. RILEY 10 Nevada Bar No. 12077 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 200 1] Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 470-2330 12 Facsimile: (702) 470-2370 zg 3 koriley@cozen.com 5 8 6 Attorney for Plainti 44 Bass Boormrion ne 3 45 16 ORDER M7 Upon consideration of Bass Underwriters’ Motion to Seal Documents (ECF 18 No. 43), which seeks to seal highly confidential Exhibits 12 and 13 to its Reply in Support of the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and 19 to Continue the Discovery Period (ECF No. 34), the Court 20 HEREBY ORDERS that the Motion to Seal Document (ECF No. 43) is 7] GRANTED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 12 and 13 to ECF No. 41 are and shall remain sealed. 23 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than February 3, 2023, Plaintiff must file a redacted version of the Reply at ECF No. 41 with exhibits using 25 place holders for Exhibits 12 and 13 on the public record. 26 27 US. GIS DGE 28 3 Dated: January 30, 2023