1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 * * *

5 AESTHETICA LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01045-JCM-GWF 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. ORDER

8 LUNCHBOXWAX HOLDINGS, LLC et al.,

9 Defendants. 10 11 This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 68), filed on 12 July 19, 2019. 13 Defendants request leave to file under seal the unredacted declaration of Christo 14 Demetriades and exhibits B &E to the Demetriades Declaration, the unredacted declaration of 15 Jonathan W. Fountain and exhibits F & G to the Jonathan W. Fountain declaration. Defendants 16 represent that such filings contain confidential terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and 17 request sealing under the good cause standard. 18 The Ninth Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial 19 files and records in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

(9th Cir. 2006). 20 There, the court recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of 21 materials produced during discovery and materials attached to dispositive motions. The 22 Kamakana court held that a “good cause” showing is sufficient to seal documents produced during 23 discovery.

. However, the Kamakana decision also held that a showing of “compelling 24 reasons” is needed to support the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. The reason 25 for the difference between the two standards is that “[n]ondispositive motions are often unrelated, 26 or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public's interest 27 in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” 1 Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s 2 interests in disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify 3 private spite, permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.

at 4 1179 (internal quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 5 lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without 6 more, compel the court to seal its records.”

citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance 7 Company,

, 1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to 8 dispositive motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring 9 continuing secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of public 10 access by outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181 11 (internal citations and quotations omitted). To the extent confidential information can be redacted 12 with minimal effort while allowing meaningful information to remain available to the public, the 13 Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Crusher 14 Designs, LLC v. Atlas Copco Powercrusher GmbH,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 15 2015) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). 16 The Ninth Circuit recognized in Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. that “[t]here are 17 good reasons to distinguish between dispositive and nondispositive motions,” as while discovery- 18 related motions are often unrelated to the merits of a case, “[t]he same cannot be said for materials 19 attached to a summary judgment motion because ‘summary judgment adjudicates substantive 20 rights and serves as a substitute for trial.’ ” 331 F.3d at 1135–36. See also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 21 Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). “When using the words ‘dispositive’ 22 and ‘nondispositive,’ we do not believe our court intended for these descriptions to morph into 23 mechanical classifications. Rather, these descriptive terms are indicative of when a certain test 24 should apply.” Ctr. for Auto Safety,

. The focus is on whether the motion at issue 25 is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.

26 Here, Defendants represent that their motion to enforce settlement contains confidential 27 information related to their settlement with Plaintiff. Defendants further argue that the good cause 1 |} Defendants motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of their claims because the 2 || approval of the parties’ settlement agreement will be dispositive of the entire action. Thus, the 3 || Defendants have not provided compelling reasons to seal the declarations related to their motion 4 || to enforce settlement and the court therefore denies their motion to seal, without prejudice. 5 || Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 68) is denied, 7 || without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subject documents shall remain sealed. Defendants 9 || may file a renewed motion to seal no later than August 12, 2019. 10 Dated this 26th day of July, 2019. 11 12 7 5 fe | GEORGE FOLEY, JR. 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28