Big Run Studios Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 BIG RUN STUDIOS INC., et al., Case No. 21-cv-04656-AMO (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 AVIAGAMES INC., Re: Dkt. No. 177 11 Defendant.

12 Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal materials associated with a 13 discovery dispute in this case. Dkt. 177; see also Dkt. 182 (statement filed in support of 14 administrative motion to seal). 15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 16 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 17 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 19 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 20 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 21 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 22 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 23 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 24 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 25 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 26 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 27 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 2 || was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 3 || that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing 4 || these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the motion 5 to seal, supporting declaration, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Court 6 || ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Dkt. 177; see also Dkt. 182 8 9 Document | Court’s Ruling on Motion to Seal Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling Sought to be 10 Sealed Joint GRANTED as to redacted portion | Narrowly tailored to protect 11 Statement of line 3:3 confidential information about Big Regarding Run’s internal practices and business 12 AviaGames’ strategy. B Motion to Compel

14 Further . Discovery (Dkt. 176) 2 Joint DENIED as to redacted portions of | Skillz does not seek to seal this a 16 Statement lines 3:17, 3:19-20, and 3: 22 information. See Dkt. 182 13. Regarding = AviaGames’ 18 Motion to Compel 19 Further Discovery 20 (Dit. 176) 21 09 In accordance with this Order, Plaintiff is instructed to refile the Joint Statement Regarding 73 AviaGames’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery (Dkt. 176) with only the redactions at line 3:3 by August 29, 2023. RDERED. 95 SOO 6 Dated: August 22, 2023 Sys SUSAN VAN KEULEN 28 United States Magistrate Judge