1

2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 WELK BIOLOGY CO., LTD., Case No. 2:24-cv-01613-APG-NJK 9 Plaintiff, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 99] 11 HAKUMO LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal. Docket No. 99. Plaintiff filed a 14 response. Docket No. 112. 15 Plaintiff initially failed to respond at all to Defendant’s motion. See Docket. The Court, 16 therefore, ordered Plaintiff to respond. Docket No. 111. The Court ordered that Plaintiff’s 17 response must include an evidentiary showing as to why sealing or redaction is appropriate. Id. at 18 2. 19 There is a strong presumption in favor of the public’s access to judicial filings. See, e.g., 20 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Documents filed in 21 relation to a non-dispositive matter may not be sealed absent a particularized showing of good 22 cause. Id. at 1180. As is clear by the word “particularized,” this showing must be specific to the 23 information at bar; conclusory assertions of the existence of sensitive information fail to meet that 24 standard. Moreover, argument of counsel is not enough; an assertion of good cause requires the 25 presentation of evidence, such as a declaration from someone with personal knowledge. 26 Henderson v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC,

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 29, 27 2023) (collecting cases). The fact that a sealing request may be unopposed does not automatically 28 result in it being granted because the Court is tasked with protecting the public’s interest in 1 transparency. Allegiant Travel Co. v. Kinzer,

, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. July 19, 2022). 2 Similarly, the mere fact that a document may be designated as confidential pursuant to a stipulated 3 protective order does not justify secrecy for a document filed with the Court. See Foltz v. State 4 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 5 Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 6 Any request to seal must also be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the public sphere only 7 material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC,

, 1040- 41 (D.

) (citing Ervine v. Warden,

(E.D. Cal. 2016)). To the extent 9 any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information 10 available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing 11 entire documents. See Foltz,

; see also in re Roman Catholic Archbishop of 12 Portland in Ore.,

(9th Cir. 2011). 13 The filing at issue is Exhibit B to Defendant’s reply in support of its motion to compel. 14 See Docket Nos. 98-2, 100. Defendant submits that the document was produced by Plaintiff during 15 discovery, and that Plaintiff contends that it depicts confidential financial information. See Docket 16 No. 99 at 1-2. Plaintiff contends that the document details Plaintiff’s costs concerning products 17 sold to Defendant associated with Walmart from July 2022 to May 2024. See Docket No. 112 at 18 2. Further, Plaintiff asserts that this document contains information regarding its markups, price 19 structure, and profits, which would provide Plaintiff’s competitors with an unfair advantage in 20 competing in the United States boba market. See

Additionally, Plaintiff submits that the 21 public’s interests are not served in knowing Plaintiff’s costs and pricing structures as to historical 22 sales to Defendant concerning products sold to Walmart.

Plaintiff’s response, however, relies 23 solely on the assertions of counsel, despite the caselaw and the Court’s clear order. See, e.g., 24 Docket Nos. 111, 112. Further, despite the Court’s order and the caselaw, Plaintiff fails to address 25 redaction.

26 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet the necessary standard for sealing. The Court will 27 give Plaintiff one final chance to comply with its order and the caselaw. No later than December 28 22, 2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental response to the motion to seal. This response must 1} include an evidentiary showing, not assertions of counsel. The response must also address whether redaction is appropriate. Failure to comply will result in the unsealing of the exhibit. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to maintain the exhibit under seal at this juncture. Docket No. 100. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 15, 2025. a en. Nancy J. Koppe* 7 United States Hig □□ strate Judge

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28