1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Eite Recovery LLC, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00507-JAD

4 Appellant v. 5 Order Granting Motion to Seal Get Fresh Sales Inc., et al., 6 [ECF No. 23] Appellees 7

8 Eite Recovery LLC, the appellant in this bankruptcy appeal, moves to seal three exhibits 9 attached to its opening brief.1 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 10 and documents including judicial records and documents.’”2 “Although the common law right of 11 access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 12 records.’”3 “A party seeking to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of 13 access by providing ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that override the public policies favoring 14 disclosure.”4 “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must balance the 15 competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.”5 16 “To seal the records, the district court must articulate a factual basis for each compelling 17 reason to seal[,] [which] must continue to exist to keep judicial records sealed.”6 The Ninth 18 Circuit has, however, “‘carved out an exception to the presumption of access’ to judicial records” 19

1 ECF No. 23. 20 2 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Prac. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2012) 21 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc.,

(1978)). 3

(quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). 22 4

(quoting Foltz,

). 23 5

(citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). 6 Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Foltz,

). that is “expressly limited to’ judicial records ‘filed under seal when attached to a non-dispositive 2|| motion.’”’ “Under the exception, ‘the usual presumption of the public’s right is rebutted[,]’” so particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under [FRCP] 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the All secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.”® 5 I find that the higher, compelling-reasons standard applies in this context because the underlying brief is dispositive as it addresses the merits of this appeal. The exhibits contain confidential business and financial information that, if released, could potentially damage the 8|| parties. I thus conclude that there are compelling reasons to seal those exhibits in their entirety. 9 Accordingly, I GRANT Eite Recovery’s motion to seal [ECF No. 23]; the Clerk of 10|| Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF Nos. 24-48. 11

US. Di 1dge nmi Aone 13 e/7, 2023 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22}; ___ 1

(quoting Foltz,

).

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd vy. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); Foltz,

).