Universal Entertainment Corporation v. Aruze Gaming America, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT 7 CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00585-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 394]

10 ARUZE GAMING AMERICA, INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal. Docket No. 394. Plaintiff filed a 13 supplement in support of the motion. Docket No. 408. Defendants filed an objection thereto. 14 Docket No. 409. 15 There is a strong presumption in favor of the public’s access to judicial filings. See, e.g., 16 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Documents filed in 17 relation to a non-dispositive matter may not be sealed absent a “particularized showing” of “good 18 cause.” Id. at 1180. Moreover, any request to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored” to 19 remove from the public sphere only the material that warrants secrecy. See, e.g., Harper v. Nev. 20 Prop. 1, LLC, ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2021 WL 3418350, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2021) (citing 21 Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). To the extent any confidential 22 information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public, 23 the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz v. 24 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman Catholic 25 Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep 26 in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”). 27 The Court requires a supplemental showing from Plaintiff as to several exhibits. First, 28 sealing is sought for Exhibits I and M on the basis that they relate to law enforcement 1} communications and/or identify those persons communicating with law enforcement. See Docket 2|| No. 408 at 3. It is not clear why such concerns cannot be addressed through redaction, as opposed 3] to sealing the entirety of those exhibits. 4 Second, sealing is sought for Exhibits B, C, K, L, and Q based on generalized statements 5] as to the need for confidentiality of internal business discussions without linking any particular document to any particular basis for confidentiality. See Docket No. 408 at 2. The Court requires meaningful discussion, supported by citation to legal authority, as to who each of these documents 8|| qualifies for secrecy from the public. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a “particularized 9] showing”). Moreover, it is not clear why Exhibits C, K, and L cannot be redacted rather than 10] sealed in the event the Court finds that they contain information that warrants secrecy from the 11} public. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff must file a supplement addressing the issues identified above by September 30, 2021. Any response thereto may be filed by October 7, 2021, and any reply may be filed by October 14, 2021. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 23, 2021 ow oo I 7+ <— ~ Nancy J. Kappe \ 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28