Polaris Processing, LLC v. New Rise Renewables Reno, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01907
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-01907-JAD-MDC Polaris Processing, LLC 4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion to Seal 5 v. [ECF No. 58] 6 New Rise Renewables Reno, LLC,

7 Defendant

8 Plaintiff Polaris Processing, LLC sues New Rise Renewables Reno, LLC for failing to 9 make required payments under the parties’ settlement agreement. Polaris moves to seal the 10 settlement agreement central to the parties’ dispute and to redact portions of its summary- 11 judgment motion referencing that agreement. It argues that, because the settlement agreement 12 has a confidentiality provision, it should remain sealed. 13 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents 14 including judicial records and documents.’”1 “Although the common law right of access is not 15 absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.’”2 A party 16 seeking to seal judicial records attached to dispositive motions like the summary-judgment 17 motion at issue here3 “can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing ‘sufficiently 18 19 20 1 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 21 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 2 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 22 3 For sealing purposes, the Ninth Circuit considers dispositive any motion that “is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. 23 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Polaris’s summary-judgment motion meets that definition. 1 compelling reasons’ that override the public policies favoring disclosure.”4 “When ruling on a 2 motion to seal court records, the district court must balance the competing interests of the public 3 and the party seeking to seal judicial records” and “articulate a factual basis for each compelling 4 reason to seal.”5 5 The fact that the parties have agreed to keep information between themselves does not

6 justify sealing. Courts have consistently noted that “the mere fact that the parties’ settlement 7 agreement may contain a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute a 8 compelling reason to seal the information.”6 Particularly when the terms of the settlement 9 agreement are directly relevant to the underlying case, courts are reluctant to find that those 10 terms should remain sealed.7 Here, the settlement agreement is the basis for Polaris’s breach-of- 11 contract claim.8 The agreement primarily contains information about the amount New Rise 12 agreed to pay Polaris—whether New Rise made those payments is the very thing at issue in 13 Polaris’s complaint and summary-judgment motion. So I conclude that the parties’ interest in 14

15 4 In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 16 5 In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (citations omitted). 17 6 See, e.g., Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1041 (D. Nev. 2021) (cleaned up). 18 7 See, e.g., id. at 1042 (“[A]lthough parties to a confidential settlement agreement may prefer to keep its terms secret ‘once they turn to the federal court to resolve their disputes . . . the public 19 administration of justice demands transparency.’” (quoting Avocados Plus Inc. v. Freska Produce Int’l LLC, 2019 WL 12345580, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019)); Rumble. Inc. v. Daily 20 Mail & Gen Tr., 2020 WL 6154061, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020) (denying motion to seal because “the alleged breach of the settlement agreement is the basis for Rumble’s breach of 21 contract claim. Therefore, the specific terms of that agreement are central to the public’s understanding of the outcome of that claim.”); Bloom Energy Corp. v. Badger, 2021 WL 22 4079208, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) (“The fact that the parties privately bargained to keep a proceeding confidential does not nullify the requirement that a party proffer a qualifying reason 23 to justify sealing that document when put at issue in a public forum.” (emphasis omitted)). 8 See ECF No. 1 (complaint). maintaining the confidentiality of their agreement does not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records, and I deny Polaris’s motion to seal. 3 Conclusion 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Polaris Processing, LLC’s motion to seal [ECF No. is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to UNSEAL ECF No. 59. 6 : USS. Distr Ige Jenni eral Dorsey 8 October29, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23