BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc.

D. Nevada

BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 20, 2020·No. 2:15-cv-00531·Unknown

Opinion

3 * * *

4 NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.; AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP, 10 JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES 1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 11 6 through 10,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is AY-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 15 [ECF No. 257]. ECF No. 259. No opposition to this Motion was filed by Plaintiffs. 16 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet its burden of overcoming 17 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 18 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 19 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 20 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). “Many courts have applied the compelling 21 reasons standard to . . . temporary restraining orders.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 22 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases); see also Selling Source, LLC v. Red River 23 Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *5 (finding requests for 24 preliminary injunctive relief should be treated as dispositive motions for purposes of sealing court 25 records) (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011). The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s 26 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to 27 seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1 have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, 2 promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner 3 Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 4 The Court has considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Court 5 finds Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain confidential business information. Therefore, there is 6 compelling reason for granting Defendants’ Motion as to these documents. However, the Court 7 finds that Exhibits 11 and 12 appear to contain no such information. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AY-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 9 Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 259) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall remain sealed. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 11 and 12 shall remain temporarily sealed. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants wish to present additional information to 13 the Court justifying sealing Exhibits 11 and 12, they should do so within ten (10) days of this 14 Order. If no additional information is provided by Defendants by the close of business on the tenth 15 (10th) day following the date of this Order, Exhibits 11 and 12 shall be unsealed. 16 DATED: March 20, 2020 17

18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 * * *

4 NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.; AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP, 10 JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES 1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 11 6 through 10,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is AY-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 15 [ECF No. 257]. ECF No. 259. No opposition to this Motion was filed by Plaintiffs. 16 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet its burden of overcoming 17 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 18 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 19 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 20 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). “Many courts have applied the compelling 21 reasons standard to . . . temporary restraining orders.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 22 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases); see also Selling Source, LLC v. Red River 23 Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *5 (finding requests for 24 preliminary injunctive relief should be treated as dispositive motions for purposes of sealing court 25 records) (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011). The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s 26 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to 27 seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1 have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, 2 promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner 3 Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 4 The Court has considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Court 5 finds Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain confidential business information. Therefore, there is 6 compelling reason for granting Defendants’ Motion as to these documents. However, the Court 7 finds that Exhibits 11 and 12 appear to contain no such information. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AY-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 9 Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 259) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall remain sealed. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 11 and 12 shall remain temporarily sealed. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants wish to present additional information to 13 the Court justifying sealing Exhibits 11 and 12, they should do so within ten (10) days of this 14 Order. If no additional information is provided by Defendants by the close of business on the tenth 15 (10th) day following the date of this Order, Exhibits 11 and 12 shall be unsealed. 16 DATED: March 20, 2020 17

18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc., (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc. (BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Opinion

Related