Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 LAS VEGAS SUN, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01667-RFB-BNW 5

Plaintiff, 6 ORDER

7 v.

8 SHELDON ADELSON, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Las Vegas Sun, Inc.’s (“The Sun’s”) motion to 12 seal. ECF No. 38. Defendants did not file a response or otherwise oppose this motion. 13 The Sun seeks to seal Exhibits 6, 8, and 11 to The Sun’s Opposition to Defendants’ 14 Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Joinder Therein (“The Sun’s Opposition”). ECF No. 39. The 15 exhibits The Sun seeks to seal contain hearing transcripts and a statement from a 2016 16 arbitration. ECF No. 109-3. The exhibits were designated confidential pursuant to the Settlement 17 Agreement. ECF No. 38 at 3. However, the Court finds that The Sun has not met the compelling 18 reasons standard required to seal the above-mentioned documents and will therefore deny The 19 Sun’s motion without prejudice. The Sun shall have until September 4 to file a new motion 20 consistent with this opinion. 21 I. Background 22 By way of background, the allegations in this case overwhelmingly focus on whether 23 defendants violated federal antitrust laws. ECF No. 1. 24 II. Analysis 25 The public has the right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents, but this right 26 is not absolute. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). If 27 a party seeks to seal judicial records filed in connection with a dispositive motion, the party must 1 meet the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178-79. This standard also applies if the motion 2 is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 3 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The party seeking to seal judicial records bears the 4 burden to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 5 F.3d at 1178. Compelling reasons must outweigh public policies favoring disclosure, including 6 “public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. Generally, there are compelling 7 reasons to seal judicial documents when the documents “might have become a vehicle for 8 improper purposes.” Id. at 1179. This includes records that “gratify private spite, promote public 9 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. But records that cause 10 “embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel 11 the court to seal its records.” Id. 12 If a party seeks to seal judicial records filed in connection with a non-dispositive motion 13 that is not “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case[,]” the party is subject to the less 14 burdensome “good cause” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; Kamakana, 447 F.3d 15 at 1178-79; Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). There is a lesser 16 need for public access to such judicial records because these documents are often “unrelated, or 17 only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 18 Here, The Sun seeks to seal exhibits that contain transcripts of testimony and a statement 19 from a 2016 arbitration proceeding that resulted in a settlement agreement. ECF No. 38 at 3-4. 20 The Sun argues that the exhibits should be sealed because they were designated confidential 21 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Id. 22 The Court finds that The Sun’s motion is subject to the compelling reasons standard. The 23 Sun’s Opposition directly addresses the merits of its antitrust claims in response to a potentially 24 dispositive motion. ECF No. 39. Therefore, The Sun’s Opposition is “more than tangentially 25 related to the merits of [this] case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. Accordingly, the 26 compelling reasons standard applies. Id. 27 1 The Court finds that The Sun does not meet the compelling reasons standard. Although 2 || The Sun asserts that these documents were designated confidential pursuant to the Settlement 3 || Agreement, The Sun does not cite any authority for the proposition that this justification alone 4 || meets the compelling reasons standard articulated in Kamakana. 447 F.3d at 1178. Nor does The 5 || Sun point to facts that show how public access to the exhibits could be used as a “vehicle for 6 || improper purposes.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. As such, the Sun has not overcome the strong 7 || presumption in favor of public access. /d. at 1178. 8 I. Conclusion 9 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to seal (ECF No. 38) is DENIED without 10 || prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until September 4, 2020 to 12 || articulate compelling reasons to seal the documents consistent with this opinion. The court will 13 || maintain these documents under seal until then and will unseal them if no motion is filed prior to 14 || that deadline or no compelling reasons are articulated in any subsequent motion. 15 DATED: August 6, 2020 Gx le Ure Q 16 BRENDA □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28