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

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC 5 REAL ESTATE OF NEVADA, LLC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER

7 v.

8 AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.; AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON 9 YOUNG-NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE, 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 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. ECF No. 15 262. No response or opposition to this Motion was filed by Defendants. 16 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs 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 seal 27 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 Plaintiffs’ Motion and the document sought to be sealed. The 5 Court finds Exhibit 13 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Directed to the NCG Defendants contain 6 confidential business information. Therefore, there is compelling reason for granting Plaintiffs’ 7 Motion to Seal as to this Exhibit. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ request to file an unredacted 8 version of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Directed to the NCG Defendants under seal is also proper 9 under the standard summarized above. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Documents 11 Under Seal (ECF No. 262) is GRANTED and Exhibit 13 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Directed 12 to the NCG Defendants shall remain sealed. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 14 Directed to the NCG Defendants shall remain sealed. 15 DATED: March 25, 2020 16

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