Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Le v. Zuffa, LLC, 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160516a59 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 12, 2016
Latest Update: May 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Mots. to Seal - Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions to Seal (Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-9 of the Local Rules of Practice. The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain documents and exhibits referenced in the filings related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Challenge Privilege Designation (Dkt. #229)
More

ORDER

(Mots. to Seal - Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246

This matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions to Seal (Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-9 of the Local Rules of Practice. The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain documents and exhibits referenced in the filings related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Challenge Privilege Designation (Dkt. #229) and the parties' Joint Status Report (Dkt. #245).

This is an antitrust action and the Court has entered a Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. #217) governing documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties' internal business strategies and other sensitive information of a proprietary business nature. The subject documents contain confidential information regarding Defendant Zuffa, LLC's internal finances, financial terms and incentives of contractual negotiations, and business strategies and analysis and were filed under seal because Zuffa's counsel designated the documents as "confidential" pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order. The parties have narrowly tailored their sealing requests by filing redacted versions of the documents containing confidential information. See (Dkt. #229, #240, #242, #244).

Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that the parties have met their burden of establishing good cause for these documents to remain sealed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Motions to Seal (Dkt. #228, #232, #237, #246) are GRANTED. 2. The documents and exhibits referenced in the motions SHALL REMAIN UNDER SEAL: Unredacted Motion to Challenge Revised Protective Order (Dkt. #227-4), Sealed Exhibits (Dkt. #227-1, #227-2), Unredacted Response (Dkt. #231), Unredacted Reply (Dkt. #237-3), Unredacted Joint Status Report (Dkt. #245). 3. The Clerk of the Court SHALL UNSEAL the moving papers incorrectly filed under seal, which do not contain confidential material: Motion to Seal Unredacted Motion and Exhibits (Dkt. #227),2 Proposed Order (Dkt. #227-3), Motion to Seal Unredacted Reply (Dkt. #237), Declaration (Dkt. #237-1), Proposed Order (Dkt. #237-2).

FootNotes


1. Member Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK; 2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF; 2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF; and 2:15cv-01057-JCM-CWH.
2. This filing was duplicative of the Motion to Seal (Dkt. #228).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer