1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 TP Link Systems Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00057-JCM-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co., Ltd.,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Before this Court are two motions to seal filed by Plaintiff, which rely on the protective 11 order entered into by the parties. ECF Nos. 82 and 97. Defendant’s responses provide the good 12 cause needed for the documents in question to remain under seal. ECF Nos. 104 and 105. As a 13 result, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions. 14 I. DISCUSSION 15 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 16 Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 17 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 18 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 19 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 20 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 21 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (alteration and internal 22 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 23 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 24 documents as well if the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. 25 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). 26 “[A] different standard applies to ‘private materials unearthed during discovery,’ as such 27 documents are not part of the judicial record.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

, 678 1 protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 2 undue burden or expense.” “The relevant standard for purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether good 3 cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs 4 for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Pintos,

(quotation omitted). 5 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good cause 6 standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion.

7 “Nondispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause 8 of action,’ and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply 9 with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.”

(citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). It is 10 within the court’s discretion whether to seal documents. Id. at 679. 11 Stipulated protective orders alone do not justify sealing court records. Kamakana, 447 12 F.3d at 1183; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 13 2003) (noting that reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a showing 14 of good cause). Stipulated protective orders “often contain provisions that purport to put the entire 15 litigation under lock and key without regard to the actual requirements of Rule 26(c).” 16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Because judges sign off on these protective orders without making 17 individualized findings, they do not provide a finding that any specific documents are secret or 18 confidential to overcome the presumption of public access. Id.; see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 19 Int’l Ins. Co.,

, 475–76 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that blanket stipulated protective 20 orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of “good cause”). 21 Plaintiff’s first motion seeks to seal certain exhibits attached to its motion to compel at 22 ECF No. 82. The sealed documents are at ECF No. 81. Next is Plaintiff’s motion to seal certain 23 exhibits attached to its opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike at ECF No. 95. The sealed 24 exhibits are at ECF No. 96. 25 The exhibits in question are attached to a nondispositive motion and an opposition to such 26 a motion. In addition, these documents are only tangentially related to the underlying cause of 27 action. As a result, the good cause standard applies. ] The exhibits at ECF No. 81 contain information regarding Cudy’s design processes, 2 || product testing and development, as well as sales and other proprietary business information. 3 || Disclosure of this proprietary information would be harmful to Cudy’s business. Good cause 4 || therefore exists to keep these documents under seal. 5 The exhibits at ECF No. 96 contain information involving Cudy’s product testing and 6 || development as well as sensitive marketing and promotional strategy information. Disclosure of 7 || these documents could be harmful to Cudy’s business. Good cause therefore exists to keep these 8 || documents under seal. 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to seal (ECF Nos. 82 and 97) 11 || are GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to maintain ECF Nos. 81 and 96 under seal. 12 13 DATED: December 2, 2025 14 15 Lig line ban BRENDA WEKSLER □ 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28