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 Motion to Compel Directed to Third- 15 Party Subpoena Recipients, and Certain Exhibits, Under Seal. ECF No. 276. No opposition to this 16 Motion was filed by Defendants. 17 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet its burden of overcoming 18 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 19 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 20 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 21 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). “Many courts have applied the compelling 22 reasons standard to . . . temporary restraining orders.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 23 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases); see also Selling Source, LLC v. Red River 24 Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *5 (finding requests for 25 preliminary injunctive relief should be treated as dispositive motions for purposes of sealing court 26 records) (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011). The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s 27 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to 1 2003). Compelling reasons require a demonstration of something more, such as when court files 2 have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, 3 promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 5 The Court has considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Court 6 finds Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 contain confidential business or personal 7 information. Therefore, there is compelling reason for granting Plaintiffs’ Motion as to these 8 Exhibits. However, the Court finds that references to these Exhibits in the redacted portions in 9 Plaintiffs’ Motion (see pages 9 and 20) contain no business or personal confidential information. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion 11 to Compel Directed to Third-Party Subpoena Recipients, and Certain Exhibits, Under Seal (ECF No. 12 276) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 shall remain sealed. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 274) shall remain temporarily 15 sealed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any party to this dispute wishes to present additional 17 information justifying the continuing to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 274), such party 18 must do so within ten (10) days of this Order. If no additional information is provided by the close 19 of business on the tenth (10th) day following the date of this Order, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ Motion 20 (ECF No. 274) shall be refiled by Plaintiffs unsealed. 21 DATED: April 29, 2020 22

23 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27