1 Dylan T. Ciciliano 2 Nevada Bar No. 12348 Email: [email protected] 7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Tel: (725) 777-3000 4 Fax: (725) 777-3112

5 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP Jennifer S. Recine (pro hac vice) 6 Donald J. Reinhard (pro hac vice) Sean M. Sigillito (pro hac vice) 7 Neena D. Sen (pro hac vice) 1633 Broadway 8 New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 506-1700 9 Fax: (212) 506-1800 Email: [email protected] 10 [email protected] [email protected] 11 [email protected] 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hollywood Citizen News 13 Operating Company, LLC and Hollywood Citizen News F&B, LLC 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01126-APG-DJA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, and 17 HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS F&B, LLC, 18 Plaintiffs, JOINT STATUS REPORT ON v. DOCUMENTS SEALED PURSUANT TO 19 TEN FIVE HOSPITALITY LLC, and DAN DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIM- DALEY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL (ECF 20 No. 58) Defendants. 21 DAN DALEY, TEN FIVE HOSPITALITY 22 LLC and 1545 F&B MANAGER LLC,

23 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. 24 HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS 25 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, HOLLYWOOD CITIZEN NEWS F&B, LLC, 26 RELEVANT HOSPITALITY LLC, and ZHAOXU CHEN a/k/a VINCENT CHEN, 27 Counterclaim Defendants. 28 1 2 LLC and Hollywood Citizen News F&B, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants and 3 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Ten Five Hospitality LLC and Dan Daley (the “Defendants,” and, 4 together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), respectfully submit this Joint Status Report with respect 5 to issues raised in the October 10th, 2023 hearing concerning the Ten Five Parties’ Motion to 6 Seal (ECF No. 58) Exhibits B, C, and D to the Declaration of Dan Daley, which were filed 7 publicly in fully redacted form at ECF No. 57-2, and lodged under seal, in connection with the 8 Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 57). 9 During the October 10th hearing, the Court instructed the Parties to confer about the 10 Motion to Seal, and, if the Parties believed that certain documents should be kept under seal, the 11 Court instructed Plaintiffs to provide their justification. Since the October 10th hearing, the 12 Parties have met and conferred regarding which of the sealed exhibits needed to remain under 13 seal, if any. 14 Plaintiffs have agreed that Exhibits B and D of ECF No. 57-2, which reflect 15 organizational charts for entities affiliated with Plaintiffs, may be unsealed. For the reasons set 16 forth below, Plaintiffs believe that Exhibit C of ECF No. 57-2 should be filed with a redaction to 17 a non-public operating agreement for Relevant Hospitality, and Defendants do not oppose 18 Plaintiffs’ re-filing Exhibit C of ECF No. 57-2 in that redacted form. 19 Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions are attached to this report as Exhibit A. 20 Plaintiffs request permission to file a redacted copy of Exhibit C to the Daley Declaration 21 (filed at ECF No. 57-2), which reflects the Operating Agreement for Relevant Hospitality, LLC 22 (the “Operating Agreement”), because it contains detailed and commercially sensitive 23 information. The information contained in the Operating Agreement is not publicly available 24 and is not of interest to the public. Given the sensitivity of the information and commercial 25 terms contained in the Operating Agreement, there are “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 26 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447

(9th Cir. 2006). 28 Courts in this District have ruled that compelling reasons exist to justify sealing records 1 2 unsealed.” Snap Lock Indus., Inc. v. Swisstrax Corp.,

, at *2 (D. Nev. July 3 21, 2021) (granting motions to seal documents “contain[ing] financial information,” documents 4 containing “confidential and proprietary information related to the marketing and sales” of 5 products, documents “contain[ing] sensitive advertising and marketing information” and 6 documents “contain[ing] business strategies”); Playup, Inc. v. Mintas,

, at *1 7 n.2 (D. Nev. Dec. 3, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal a operations agreement because it 8 “contain[ed] commercially sensitive proprietary information regarding [movant’s] operations, 9 processes, and procedures with [movant’s] partners.”). The Operating Agreement is just such a 10 record, containing detailed information relating to how Relevant Hospitality is run, release of 11 which to the public would expose Relevant Hospitality to potential competitive harm. 12 On the other hand, the public has little interest in the redacted content of the Operating 13 Agreement, and any interest it does have is outweighed by Relevant Hospitality’s interest in 14 protecting its “proprietary business practices.” See Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, 15 LLC, No. 2:09-CV-01491-JCM,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (granting 16 motion to seal documents discussing “the parties’ business operations . . . [and] corporate 17 structure[.]”). Redacting the document to protect those particulars will in no way hamper “the 18 public’s understanding of the judicial process” as relates to any aspect of this trademark- 19 infringement action, not least the now-decided Motion to Stay or Dismiss, in connection with 20 which these documents were filed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks and 21 citations omitted). 22 Because compelling reasons exist to shield the sensitive business information in the 23 Operating Agreement from public disclosure, this Court should allow the Operating Agreement 24 to remain under seal and allow Plaintiffs to re-file the document with redactions. 25 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court’s permission to 26 re-file the Operating Agreement submitted as part of ECF No. 57-2 with the redactions proposed 27 at Exhibit A. 28 … 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 || Dated this 9" November 2023. Dated this 9" November 2023. 3 || GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 4 /s/ Dylan T. Ciciliano /s/ Ross M. Bagley 5 || Dylan T. Ciciliano V.R. Bohman Nevada Bar No. 12348 Nevada Bar No. 13075 6 || 7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210 Erin M. Gettel Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Nevada Bar No. 13877 7 || Tel: (725) 777-3000 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 8 Fax: (725) 777-3112 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Tel: (702) 784-5200 g |} -and- Fax: (702) 784-5252 10 | KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP -and- Jennifer S. Recine (pro hac vice) 11 || Donald J. Reinhard (pro hac vice) PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 2 Neena Deb Sen (pro hac vice) Todd E. Soloway (pro hac vice) Sean M. Sigillito (pro hac vice) Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme (pro hac vice) 13 || 1633 Broadway Ross M. Bagley (pro hac vice) New York, New York 10019 Nicholas G. Saady (pro hac vice) 14 || Tel: (212) 506-1700 7 Times Square Fax: (212) 506-1800 New York, New York 10036-6569 I5 Tel: (212) 421-4100 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax: (212)-798-6306 17 Attorneys for Defendants 18 19 ORDER 20 ITISS ERED. 21 □ > UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: 23 November 13, 2023 24 25 26 27 28 Turner Gordon LLP AtLaw 4 of 4