Mikhail Cirkunvos v. Zuffa LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 * * * 3 Mikhail Cirkunvos, Case No. 2:25-cv-00946-RFB-BNW 4 Plaintiff, 5 ORDER v. 6 Zuffa LLC, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Before this Court is Defendants’ motion seeking to seal and/or redact exhibits attached to 10 the Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Deficiencies (at ECF No. 86).1 ECF No. 95. No 11 opposition has been filed. 12 I. Analysis 13 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 14 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 15 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 16 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 17 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 18 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 19 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal 20 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 21 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 22 documents as well if the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. 23 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 24 Among the compelling reasons which may justify sealing a record are when such court 25 files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify 26 27 1 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. 2 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). However, avoiding a litigant’s embarrassment, 3 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 4 records. Id. 5 “[A] different standard applies to ‘private materials unearthed during discovery,’ as such 6 documents are not part of the judicial record.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th 7 Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). Under Rule 26(c), a court may enter a protective 8 order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 9 or expense.” “The relevant standard for purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether good cause exists to 10 protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery 11 against the need for confidentiality.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotation omitted). Given the 12 “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good cause standard in 13 evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion. Id. “Nondispositive 14 motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and, 15 as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal 16 force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). It is within the 17 court’s discretion whether to seal documents. Id. at 679. 18 Defendants seek to seal/redact several documents filed in a joint status report. Because 19 these documents are attached to a matter that is not dispositive or more than tangentially related 20 to the merits of the case, this Court applies the good cause standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 21 Good cause exists to seal/redact the exhibits in question. 22 Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 are discovery-related communications between counsel and 23 discovery charts which include PII of non-party fighters. Redaction of PII is authorized by rule 24 and local practice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2; LR IC 6-1. 25 Exhibits 6 is an email discussing a non-party fighter’s bout paperwork and confidential 26 financial details. Exhibit 8 is presentation deck which contains sensitive information regarding 27 Endeavor and UFC’s financial information and business strategy. See Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp, 487 F. 1 || information); Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (recognizing protection 2 || of business information that might harm competitive standing) 3} L CONCLUSION 4 IT IS THERERFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal at ECF No. 95 is 5 || GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain under seal the exhibits at ECF No. 88. 6 7 8 DATED: December 17, 2025 9 Lo tmtace bes ll OO fKSLER pe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28