Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Scientific Games Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 16, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01637
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, et Case No. 2:20-cv-01637-GMN-BNW 8 al.,

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER

10 v.

11 Scientific Games Corporation, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court are two motions to seal, ECF Nos. 56 and 65. Neither motion is opposed. 15 I. Legal Standard 16 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 17 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 18 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 19 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 20 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 21 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 22 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal 23 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 24 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 25 documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 26 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 27 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good 1 are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 2 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Nondispositive 3 motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and, 4 as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal 5 force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 6 1179). 7 II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 56) 8 Here, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF No. 56 seeks to seal the Declaration of R. Stephen 9 Berry and its exhibits offered in support of Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to compel 10 arbitration. This is related to a non-dispositive motion, and it is not more than tangentially related 11 to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the good cause standard applies to whether these 12 documents (a declaration and leases) should be sealed. 13 Plaintiffs seek to seal these documents because, Plaintiffs suggest, they have some 14 commitment to Defendants to seek to seal them. ECF No. 56 at 2. Plaintiffs state that “Defendants 15 assert that the leases contain their confidential and proprietary information possibly relating to 16 their pricing trends, licensing of intellectual property, etc.” Id. Plaintiffs further state that the 17 parties have not entered a protective order yet and depending on how Defendants designate these 18 documents once they do, the Court may wish to unseal them. Id. 19 Based on the argument provided, the Court does not find good cause exists to seal these 20 documents. It appears that Plaintiffs are operating out of an abundance of caution in seeking to 21 seal Defendants’ documents. However, Plaintiffs do not actually assert that the documents 22 contain confidential or proprietary information and explain, specifically, what such sensitive 23 information they contain. Accordingly, the Court will deny ECF No. 56 without prejudice. If 24 Defendants would like these documents sealed, they must file a motion to seal by March 9, 2021 25 explaining, specifically, why good cause exists to seal these documents. If no such motion is 26 filed, the documents will be unsealed. 27 1 Ill. Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 65) 2 Defendants’ motion to seal at ECF No. 65 seeks to seal exhibits filed in support of 3 || Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. These documents are 4 || related to a dispositive motion and, therefore, the compelling reason standard applies to whether 5 || these documents should be sealed. Defendants seek to seal these documents because they 6 || “contain confidential business information on pricing and Defendants’ technology that, if 7 || released, would harm Defendants’ competitive standing.” ECF No. 65 at 3. 8 The Court reviewed the documents at issue and finds that compelling reasons exist to seal 9 || them. These documents contain sensitive business information that could be used for an improper 10 || purpose if allowed to be in the public record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, the 11 || Court will grant Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 65). 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 56) is DENIED 13 || without prejudice. If Defendants would like these documents sealed, they must file a motion to 14 || seal by March 9, 2021 explaining, specifically, why good cause exists to seal these documents. If 15 || no such motion is filed, the documents will be unsealed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 65) is 17 || GRANTED. 18 DATED: February 16, 2021. 9 Sx Leas □□□ BRENDA WEKSLER 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28