1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

)

ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC. and )

PCT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No. 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

vs. )

)

CHENG SUN LAN, et al., ) Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’

) Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery,

Defendant. ) Response to Motion to Dismiss and 

__________________________________________) Supporting Exhibits Under Seal (#46)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery, Response to Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Exhibits

Under Seal (#46), filed on September 17, 2014. 

The Supreme Court has recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S.

589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong

presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The 9th Circuit has held that the sealing of filings is appropriate to

protect the parties’ proprietary business operations and trade secrets. See Kamakana v. City and

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party seeking to seal a judicial

record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption by articulating the compelling

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

public policies favoring disclosure. Id. The public policies that support the right of access to

dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive 

Case 2:15-cv-02549-NVW Document 49 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

materials. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, a

‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party

must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments. See

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Starlite

Development (China) Ltd. v. Textron Financial Corp., 2008 WL 2705393 at 34, (E.D. Cal. 2008). 

Here, Plaintiffs indicate that portions of their motion for jurisdictional discovery, response

to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and supporting exhibits for both pleadings contain “highly

sensitive trade secret and non-public information such as Plaintiffs’ pricing, purchasing quantities,

and internal financial information.” See Dkt. #46. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of

its pleadings that reveal confidential customer information. Plaintiffs also seek to seal exhibits to

those pleadings, which include a promissory note; a company power point presentation detailing

business operations, company products, and disclosing pictures of manufacturing facilities; and

portions of internal operating emails and financial invoices. See Dkt. #39, #40, #44, #45. Having

reviewed the documents, the Court finds that Plaintiffs establish compelling reasons to file portions

of their aforementioned pleadings and exhibits under seal. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Jurisdictional Discovery, Response to Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Exhibits Under Seal

(#46) is granted. Sealed documents #39, #40, #44, and #45 shall remain sealed.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2014.

______________________________________

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case 2:15-cv-02549-NVW Document 49 Filed 09/22/14 Page 2 of 2