PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff OMIX-ADA, INC. (hereinafter "Omix" and/or "Plaintiff") by and through its undersigned counsel of record, respectfully requests leave to file attorney billing records and rates under seal in order to protect the confidentiality of such information. The records and rates are Exhibit A to the Declaration of John L. Krieger in Support of Omix's Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

This Motion is made pursuant to Local Rule 10-5(b) and is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the papers and pleadings on file in this action and any oral argument the Court may deem necessary.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. Legal Argument

Local Rule 10-5(b) permits the Court to "direct the unsealing of papers filed under seal, with or without redactions, after notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard." The public interest in access to judicial records is limited to "the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1986)). A party seeking an order to seal court records "must articulate . . . compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the . . . public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal quotations omitted). Such compelling reasons include "the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179. In determining whether to seal judicial records, a court must balance the competing interests of the public and the moving party. Id.

Additionally, under Nevada law, "[a] person has a privilege, which may be claimed by the person or the person's agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret owned by him or her, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice." NEV. REV. STAT. § 49.325(1). Courts have recognized billing rates as trade secrets. See Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc. v. Camacho, 272 Cal.Rptr. 352, 358, 222 Cal.App.3d 1278, 1288 (Cal.Ct.App. 2 Dist. 1990) (information such as "billing rates, key contacts, specialized requirements and mark up rates, is sophisticated information and irrefutably of commercial value and not readily ascertainable to other competitors.").

Here, in support of Omix's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Omix must submit to the Court detailed billing records and rates, which information is not generally available to the public or to Omix's attorneys' competitors. Further, the billing records include descriptions of the work performed by Omix's attorneys, which descriptions are confidential work product and attorney-client communications. Accordingly, in order to protect the confidential nature of these records, Omix seeks to submit the attorney billing records and rates under seal, which will give the Court the opportunity to conduct an in camera review to assess whether Omix's attorneys' fees and costs are reasonable.

II. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Omix respectfully requests that this court enter an order granting Omix leave to file under seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of John L. Krieger in Support of Omix's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and the billing rates listed in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the same declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.