Equabli, Inc. v. EverChain LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Equabli, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01444-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Denying Motion for a 6 v. Temporary Restraining Order as Moot, and Granting Motions to Seal 7 EverChain LLC,

8 Defendant [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 19]

9 10 On August 8, 2025, plaintiff Equabli, Inc. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 11 (TRO) and a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI). ECF Nos. 10, 12. In conjunction with 12 those filings, Equabli filed motions to seal the exhibits to the motions for temporary restraining 13 order and preliminary injunction. Mots. to seal, ECF Nos. 11, 13. To date, no opposition to the 14 motions has been filed. Prior to the deadline to file responses to those motions, the parties filed a 15 proposed stipulated PI on August 15, 2025. Proposed stip., ECF No. 19. Because I find the Winter 16 factors1 are met here, and because the parties stipulate to entry of the PI, Equabli’s motion for a 17 preliminary injunction is granted, the motion for a temporary restraining order is denied as 18 moot. The order approving the stipulated PI will be docketed separately. Further, for the reasons 19 set forth below, the motions to seal are granted. 20 I. Legal standard 21 In the Ninth Circuit there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” 22 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The public interest in full 23 disclosure of documents is grounded upon “ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial 24 process and of significant public events.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 25 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the sealing of entire 26

1 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 1 documents is improper when confidential information can be redacted to leave meaningful 2 information available to the public. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. To the extent that a sealing order is 3 permitted, it must be narrowly tailored. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, 464 U.S. 4 501, 513 (1984) (sealing orders should be “limited to information that [is] actually sensitive”). 5 Thus, only the portions of a filing that contain specific reference to confidential documents or 6 information, and exhibits that contain such confidential information, may be filed under seal. In 7 re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). Trade secrets and 8 proprietary confidential business information are routinely considered “compelling reasons” to 9 seal. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business 10 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, 11 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for “confidential 12 business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and 13 Defendant”). 14 “[C]ompelling reasons” must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive 15 motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when 16 it finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 17 hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted). Therefore, the party seeking to have the document sealed must present “articulable 19 facts” identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome 20 the presumption of access because they outweigh the public's interest in understanding the 21 judicial process. Id. at 1180. “). 22 II. Discussion 23 Equabli seeks to seal Exhibit E to its motions for PI/TRO, which contains proprietary 24 data and trade secret information it claims that, if released, could be detrimental to its business. 25 See generally ECF Nos. 11, 13. Having reviewed the motions and Exhibit E, I find that Equabli has 26 demonstrated compelling reasons for seeking to keep Exhibit E under seal and has narrowly 1|| tailored its request to only the material which warrants secrecy, that is proprietary, confidential 2|| business information, and trade secrets. See ECF Nos. 11-2; 13-2. For those reasons, Equabli’s 3}| motions to seal are granted. See Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187819, at *2, *13 n.2 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2018) (finding compelling reasons to seal 5|| selective references to and exhibits describing defendant’s confidential business information 6|| because it may harm defendant’s competitive standing if revealed). Conclusion 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Equabli’s motion for temporary restraining order [ECF No. 10] is DENIED as moot. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Equabli’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF 1]|| No. 12] is GRANTED. The proposed stipulated preliminary injunction [ECF No. 19] is approved and will enter separately.’ B IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Equabli’s motions to seal [ECF Nos. 11, 13] are 14|| GRANTED. 5 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to maintain the,seal on ECF Nos. 1, 13. 16 Dated: September 2, 2025 /, / ty Cp Gi 9 tates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 ——_________ The court made minor modifications to the proposed order.