TChutima, Inc. v. Bua Group, LLC

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 TCHUTIMA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCM-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 65] 10 BUA GROUP, LLC, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 65. No response was 13 filed. 14 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 15 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Parties seeking to keep secret from the 16 public documents filed in relation to non-dispositive motions must make a “particularized 17 showing” of “good cause.” Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 18 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Such a burden is met by the presentation of evidence, such as a 19 declaration from someone with personal knowledge, rather than by the argument of counsel in 20 motion practice.” Henderson v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC, 2023 WL 4288830, at *1 21 (D. Nev. June 29, 2023) (collecting cases). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that secrecy of 22 judicial filings may be appropriate when the records could become a vehicle for improper 23 purposes, such as the use of the records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 24 libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. On the other hand, 25 “[t]he mere fact that production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, 26 or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 27 A party seeking to file documents under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. 28 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). The fact that a sealing request 1 may be unopposed does not automatically result in it being granted because the Court is tasked 2 with protecting the public’s interest in transparency. Allegiant Travel Co. v. Kinzer, 2022 WL 3 2819734, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. July 19, 2022). Similarly, the mere fact that a document may be 4 designated as confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective order (or, as here, pursuant to an 5 informal agreement pending finalization of a stipulated protective order) does not justify secrecy 6 for a document filed with the Court. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 7 Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 Any request to seal must also be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the public sphere only 9 material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1040- 41 (D. 10 Nev. 2021) (citing Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). To the extent 11 any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information 12 available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing 13 entire documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also in re Roman Catholic Archbishop of 14 Portland in Ore., 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). 15 The instant motion fails on several levels. First, it is predicated on the allegedly sensitive 16 nature of certain financial information, but there is no declaration or other evidence from someone 17 with personal knowledge as to that sensitivity or the harm that would result from public disclosure. 18 Second, the motion is largely predicated on case law concerning tax returns, which are admittedly 19 not at issue here. See Docket No. 65 at 5. Third, the request for sealing rather than redaction is 20 supported by the single, unelaborated assertion that “merely redacting these documents would not 21 sufficiently protect the privacy interests.” Docket No. 65 at 2. Even a cursory review of the subject 22 exhibits reveals that this contention is baseless. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // ] Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motion to seal. The Clerk’s Office is 2| INSTRUCTED to continuing maintaining the subject exhibits under seal at this juncture. 3] Plaintiffs must file a supplement by February 14, 2025. That supplement must include an 4] evidentiary showing (presumably a declaration from someone with personal knowledge), must provide argument specific to the information at issue, and must propose redactions. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 29, 2025 g — < Nancy J. Koppe 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28