Shefsky v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Stephen Shefsky, et al., 2:25-cv-00358-ART-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 5 vs. 6 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are parties’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 21). For the reasons stated below, 9 the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 This is a case arising from “the collapse of a Ponzi scheme run by David Bunevacz (“Bunevacz”) 13 and certain of Bunevacz’s relatives” and defendants’ alleged negligence and unjust enrichment based on 14 the facts of that scheme. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ failure to investigate 15 Bunevacz’s source of wealth “resulted in Plaintiffs’ total losses of monies loaned to Bunevacz.” Id. at 16 10. 17 II. MOTION TO SEAL 18 A. Legal Standard 19 Courts have recognized that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 21 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 22 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)). Because of this, unless a particular court record is one 23 “traditionally kept secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 24 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial 25 record must meet one of two standards. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-1102. 1 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion, the party must show that 2 there is a “compelling reason” to seal the document. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 667 3 (9th Cir. 2010). That is, the party seeking to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by 4 specific factual findings…that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 5 disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 6 citations and quotations omitted). “What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound 7 discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon 435 U.S. at 599) 8 (internal quotations omitted). However, courts have found compelling reasons to seal documents that 9 might otherwise become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 10 If a party seeks to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, then the party need only 11 show that “good cause” exists. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. This is the same good cause standard that applies 12 to protective orders under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 13 1179-80. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking [to seal] bears the burden of showing specific 14 prejudice or harm will result[.]” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 15 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 B. Analysis 17 Parties seek to seal “Exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiffs’ Appendix in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition 18 to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.” (“Exhibits”) See ECF No. 21. Motions for Summary 19 Judgment are dispositive. Because the motion pertains to exhibits regarding a dispositive motion, the 20 Court finds that the compelling reason standard applies. 21 Parties state that the Exhibits were discovery materials from their prior Section 1782 action. Id. 22 at 1. “Exhibits 2 and 3 contain information about Wynn’s internal business operations and 23 investigations, policies and practices regarding compliance and investigatory activities, and internal 24 information regarding non-party David Bunevacz’s room arrangements and stays at Wynn Las Vegas.” 25 Id. Parties argue that compelling reason exists to seal the Exhibits because the documents in question (1) 1 || were marked as confidential in their prior Section 1782 action and (2) because they relate to sensitive 2 || business information. The Court finds that parties have met the compelling reason standard. See e.g., 3 || ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Servs., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56169, at *17 (D. Nev. 4 || March 27, 2024) (confidential business information such as licensing terms, royalty rates, and 5 || proprietary business plans satisfy the compelling reason ) (collecting cases); See also Aevoe Corp. v. AE 6 || Tech. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74241, at *3-6 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013) (finding good cause to seal 7 || financial information business strategies, sales information, customer and business affiliate identities, 8 || and pricing information that the party treats as sensitive business information). Therefore, the Court will 9 || grant the motion to seal. 10 11 ACCORDINGLY, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. 13 14 DATED this 11" day of July 2025. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. tpg, 6 ZY th A \ 7 LZ nro Il United Stats Magystrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25