Internet Sports International, LTD. v. Amelco USA, LLC

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Internet Sports International, Ltd., Case No. 2:23-cv-00893-ART-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 315] 9 Amelco USA, LLC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal an exhibit designated as 12 confidential by Plaintiff. Docket No. 315; see also Docket No. 316-14 (sealed exhibit). Plaintiff 13 filed a response in support of sealing. Docket No. 318; see also Docket No. 305-1 (declaration). 14 Defendants filed a reply arguing against sealing. Docket No. 322. 15 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. 16 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “In general, compelling reasons 17 sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 18 when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 19 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 20 trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. 21 The instant papers leave much to be desired. The Court will issue this order with some 22 overarching rulings and the parties will be required to file a joint supplement in compliance with 23 those rulings. First, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the prior order conditionally 24 allowing sealing obviates the need for Plaintiff to make a proper showing as to secrecy now. See 25 Docket No. 318 at 2-3; but see Docket No. 312 at 1 (“In the event the subject exhibit is filed again 26 with respect to future motion practice, a proper showing for sealing must be made at that 27 juncture”). Second, the Court rejects Defendants’ arguments that a finding of insufficient evidence 28 to support a trade secret claim in a summary judgment ruling means that information cannot be 1} sealed. See Docket No. 322 at 2. A sealing request is an administrative motion that is generally 2|| resolved based on a declaration, rather than a ruling on the merits. See Henderson v. Aria Resort 3 & Casino Holdings, LLC, 2023 WL 4288830, at *1 (D. Nev. June 29, 2023) (collecting cases). Third, the Court agrees with Defendants that a basis to seal this lengthy document has not been 5|| made, as opposed to providing redactions. See Docket No. 322 at 4; see also Harper v. Nev. Prop. 6] J, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021). The supporting declaration attests to 7| confidential information on specific pages and compelling reasons have not been shown for 8|| secrecy on pages that are not addressed. Fourth, the Court agrees with Defendants that the declaration appears too vague to determine what precisely requires redaction. See Docket No. 322 10] at 3-4. Given the posture of the motion to seal addressing an opposing party’s designated material, 11] Plaintiff has not responded to the arguments with more specificity as to what exactly within this 12|| exhibit warrants secrecy. 13 In light of the above, the Court DEFERS ruling on this motion to seal. No later than 14] September 17, 2025, the parties must file a joint supplement indicating what specific parts of the 15] exhibit warrant redaction. That joint supplement must state with specificity the redactions 16] proposed and the factual basis for asserting that compelling reasons exist for secrecy. The Court 17| would hope the parties can agree on this administrative matter. In the event the parties cannot 18] agree, the joint supplement must provide the parties’ competing positions. Since it is Plaintiff that seeks secrecy, it must prepare and file the joint supplement. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 9, 2025 22 4 A —, Nancy J“Ko 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28