Big City Dynasty Corp v. FP Holdings, L.P.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA BIG CITY DYNASTY CORP. and RYAN Case No.: 2:19-cv-02078-APG-NJK RADDON, 4 Order Granting Motion to Redact Plaintiffs 5 [ECF No. 51] v. 6 FP HOLDINGS, L.P., 7 Defendant 8 9 Defendant FP Holding, L.P. filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary 10}) judgment and a countermotion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 49, 50. Exhibits 3 and 4 to 11) those filings contain confidential information that FP Holdings redacted. ECF Nos. 49-5, 49-6, 50-6. FP Holdings now moves for permission to make those redactions. ECF No. 51. FP Holdings has set forth compelling reasons to redact that information, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s standard for sealing in Kamakana y. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). I will allow the documents to remain filed as redacted. However, so that the record 16]) is complete for appellate review, FP Holdings shall file unredacted versions of exhibits 3 and 4 under seal. 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that FP Holding’s motion (ECF No. 51) is granted. FP Holdings’ filing of exhibits 3 and 4 in redacted format is permitted. 20 I FURTHER ORDER FP Holdings to file unredacted versions of exhibits 3 and 4 under by November 17, 2020. 22 DATED this 3rd day of November, 2020. 23 G ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE