RES Exhibit Services, LLC v. LNW Gaming, Inc. f/k/a SG Gaming, Inc. and f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 ISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RES EXHIBIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01953-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LNW GAMING, INC. f/k/a SG GAMING, INC. f/k/a BALLY GAMING, INC., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits E and W to the Declaration 11 of Philip R. Erwin in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and to Redact Exhibits D, G, I, 12 K, V, and X–Y. ECF No. 43. Defendant says the Exhibits are properly sealed and redacted to shield 13 the parties’ proprietary business information, financial activities, and contractual arrangements. Id. 14 at 4. 15 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendant must meet its burden of overcoming 16 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 17 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 18 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 19 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). However, where a party seeks to seal 20 documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access 21 to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ….” Id., 417 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). 22 The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 23 exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm 24 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons require a 25 demonstration of something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for improper 26 purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, disseminate 27 libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 1 || information, and internal policies and procedures, a reviewing court may grant the motion to seal 2 || there are compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of tl 3 || information. Callahan vy. PlusFour, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-2513 JCM (GWF), 2019 WL 30249 4 || at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2019), citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 5 The Court reviewed the Motion to Seal as well as the Exhibits sought to be entirely sealed. 6 || redacted. The Court grants Defendant’s Motion as the material contains proprietary business at 7 || financial information and contents of contractual agreements and negotiations between the parties 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits E at 9 || W to the Declaration of Philip R. Erwin in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and 10 || Redact Exhibits D, G, I, K, V, and X-Y (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits E and W to the Declaration of Philip R. Erw 12 |} (ECF Nos. 42-6, 42-24) are and shall remain sealed. The unredacted versions of Defendant 13 || Exhibits to its Motion for Sanctions at ECF No. 44 are and shall remain sealed. 14 DATED this 21st day of June, 2023.

16 . ELAYNA/J. YOU H 17 UNITEDSTATES MAGISFRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28