Manley v. MGM Resorts International

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01906
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 DWIGHT MANLEY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01906-MMD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL; MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, 8 Defendants. 9 MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada 10 limited liability company,

11 Counterclaimant,

12 v.

13 DWIGHT MANLEY, an individual,

14 Counter-Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibit 4 to 16 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77). Plaintiff moves for leave to 17 file Exhibit 4 and an unredacted version of his Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under 18 seal prompted by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 24) entered in this case. 19 Defendants marked Exhibit 4 “confidential” and explain in their Response to the Motion to Seal 20 (ECF No. 82) that “[t]he policies and procedures at issue pertain to Defendants’ practices of issuing 21 temporary lines of credit to patrons for purposes of gambling activities. … These policies are not 22 available to the general public – but only to certain, but not all, MGM and MGMRI employees. … 23 Moreover, Defendants’ policies regarding temporary lines of credit contain commercial information 24 and/or trade secrets concerning its credit practices that warrant protection from public disclosure 25 under FRCP 26(c)(1)(G).” In support of their position, Defendants cite FRCP 26(c)(1)(G) (noting 26 that a protective order is appropriate where “trade secret or other confidential research, development, 27 or commercial information” is involved); Garcia v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 2:17- 1 to seal its internal policies and procedures since they fell “well within the Ninth Circuit’s definition 2 of a trade secret”); Birch v. Lombardo, Case No. 2:16-cv-01051-RFB-CWH, 2017 WL 6063068, at 3 *6 (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2017) (policy and procedure manual subject to protective order due to safety 4 concerns); Sherwin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., Case No. 2:11-cv-00043-JCM, 2011 WL 4479757, at 5 *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 26, 2011) (internal “best practices guide” subject to protective order was correctly 6 deemed as confidential). 7 The Court finds Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing 8 Exhibit 4 and the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 9 Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, Case No. 2:09-cv-01491-JCM, 2011 WL 1630338, 10 at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (granting motion to seal documents containing “information related 11 to the parties’ propriety business operations and trade secrets” under compelling reasons standard); 12 Le v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02393 RFB GWF, 2017 WL 4350976, at *2 (D. 13 Nev. Sept. 29, 2017) (finding compelling reasons to seal where “public disclosure could aid 14 Defendant’s competitors in creating or enhancing upon Defendant’s policies and procedures, thereby 15 destroying Defendant’s competitive advantage.”). 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under 17 Seal Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) is 18 GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 78 and Exhibit 4 thereto are and shall remain 20 sealed. 21 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2024 22 23

24 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27