United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendants Midwest Industrial Supply
Company and Alliance Automotive, LLC's (collectively
“defendants”) motion for leave to file surreply.
(ECF No. 122).
before the court is defendants renewed motion to seal. (ECF
before the court is plaintiffs Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
and Hyundai Motor Company's (collectively
“plaintiffs”) motion to seal. (ECF Nos. 124,
March 13, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement
which resolved all claims in this litigation. (ECF No. 56).
The notice also provided that the offer of judgment “is
not to be construed either as an admission that Defendants
are liable in this action or that Plaintiffs . . . have
suffered damages.” Id.
April 18, 2019, the court entered judgement and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion for attorney's fees. (ECF
Nos. 75, 77, 78). Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 96),
to which plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 116). The reply includes
new evidence regarding alleged material differences between
Hyundai's parts and the Mobis parts that defendants sold.
Defendants request leave to file surreply so they can
adequately address this new evidence. (ECF No. 122). Good
cause appearing, the court will grant defendants' motion.
public has a general right to inspect judicial records and
documents. Kamakana v. City & County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). However,
“access to judicial records is not absolute.”
Id. The Ninth Circuit has identified two types of
documents that are “not subject to the right of public
access . . . because the records have ‘traditionally
been kept secret for important policy reasons.'”
Id. (quoting Times Mirror Co. v. United
States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989)). These two
types of documents are “grand jury transcripts and
warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment
other documents, there is a “strong presumption in
favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003) (citation omitted). A litigant can overcome this
presumption by articulating “compelling reasons”
that outweigh the history and public policy in favor of
disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
Compelling reasons exist “when such ‘court files
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such
as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon
v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
argue that the court should redact and seal certain lines
from paragraphs 44, 45, and 46 of Hans Sundgaard's
declaration (ECF No. 109). (ECF No. 123). Further, plaintiffs
argue that the court should seal the following:
(1) Kenneth E. Keller's supplemental declaration and
exhibit A thereto (ECF Nos. 119-13, 119-14);
(2) David Goodloe's supplemental declaration and exhibit
1 thereto (ECF Nos. 119-1, 119-2);
(3) exhibit D to Eric Sim's declaration (ECF ...