INAG, Inc. v. Richar, LLC

Opinion

1 TNyelveard Ra .B Aanr dNreow. 0s,9 E49sq9. Jerrell L. Berrios, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 15504 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 4 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 5 Tyler.Andrews@gtlaw.com berriosj@gtlaw.com 6 Rob L. Phillips, Esq. 7 Nevada Bar No. 8225 FISHER BROYLES, LLP 8 145 S. Fairfax, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 9 Telephone: (702) 518-1239 Rob.Phillips@fisherbroyles.com 10 Matthew J. Levinstein 11 (admitted pro hac vice) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 13 Telephone: (312) 456.1039 Facsimile: (312) 456.8435 14 levinsteinm@gtlaw.com 15 Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 19 INAG, INC., a Nevada corporation, CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00722-RFB-EJY 20 and MOTION TO SEAL EX. 3 TO 21 MARK H. JONES and SHERYLE L. JONES as DEFENDANT / 22 Trustees of the Mark Hamilton Jones and Sheryle COUNTERCLAIMANT RICHAR, Lynn Jones Family Trust U/A/D November 7, INC.’S EMERGENCY MOTION 23 2013, TO STRIKE ANY UNDISCLOSED TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT, OR 24 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, OPINION RELATING TO THE 25 DISPUTED TERM CARD v. 26 RICHAR, INC., a Nevada corporation, 27 Defendant/Counterclaimant. 1 Defendant/Counterclaimant, Richar, Inc. (“Richar”), moves to seal Exhibit 3 in its 2 Emergency Motion to Strike Any Testimony, Argument or Opinion Relating to Whether an Indicia 3 is a Card (“Motion”). Exhibit 3 is Plaintiff INAG, Inc.’s (“INAG”) expert report, which is a 4 voluminous exhibit containing confidential commercial information and financial data, and it 5 references documents that were designated by the parties as confidential under a Protective Order. 6 Pursuant to LR IA 10-5, Richar seeks to file Exhibit 3 to its Motion under seal. 7 I. LEGAL ANALYSIS 8 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City 9 & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, “[a] party seeking to seal 10 judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing ‘sufficiently 11 compelling reasons’ that override the public policies favoring disclosure.” In re Midland Nat. Life 12 Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). Yet, the presumption 13 does not apply to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a non-dispositive motion. Id. 14 Instead, a particularized showing of “good cause” under Rule 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the 15 secrecy of sealed documents attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. Even under a higher burden 16 of overcoming the strong presumption of access, Nevada courts have found that exhibits containing 17 “confidential business information,” including those which “could potentially damage the parties’ 18 competitive standing” constitutes a compelling reason for sealing a document. See, e.g., Hunt v. 19 Zuffa, LLC, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1180, 1188 (D. Nev. 2021); First 100 LLC v. Omni Financial, LLC, 20 No. 2:16-cv-00099-RFB-CWH, 2016 WL 5661916, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2016); Boca Park 21 Marketplace Syndications Group, LLC v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01197-RFB- 22 BNW, 2020 WL 2892586, at *5 (D. Nev. May 31, 2010); Scientific Games Corp. v. AGS, LLC, 23 No. 2:17-cv-00343-JAD-NJK, 2017 WL 1228412, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2017). 24 Here, the lesser “good cause” standard applies because the Motion is a non-dispositive 25 motion relating to the presentation of certain evidence at trial. Richar seeks to seal Exhibit 3 to its 26 Motion in its entirety. Exhibit 3 is INAG’s expert report relating to its infringement contentions, 27 and it references a voluminous amount of confidential business information that the parties 1 || Because the exhibit contains confidential business information, good cause exists to protect the 2 || parties’ competitive standing. 3 || IL. CONCLUSION 4 The Court should grant Richar’s Motion to Seal because Exhibit 3 to its motion contains 5 ||contain confidential commercial information, the disclosure of which could harm the parties’ 6 ||competitive standing. 7 DATED this 4th day of August, 2024. g Respectfully submitted, 9 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10 /s/ Tyler R. Andrews Tyler R. Andrews, Esq. (NBN 9499) 1 Jerrell L. Berrios, Esq. (NBN 15504) 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 13 Rob L. Phillips, Esq. (NBN 8225) 14 FISHER BROYLES, LLP 145 S. Fairfax, 2nd Floor 15 Los Angeles, California 90036 16 Matthew J. Levinstein (pro hac vice) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 17 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 8 Chicago, Illinois 60601

19 Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 U.S. MAGIST E GE 24 Date: August 6, 2024 25 26 27 28 Page 2