Vigdor v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc.

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of documents submitted in connection with their motions in limine, which are motions addressing the evidence that may be presented at trial. The requests were made in Docket Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, and 163.

Legal standard

The court explained that documents attached to dispositive motions generally require a showing of “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s strong presumption of access to court records. Documents connected to non-dispositive motions, however, are subject to the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That standard requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm. The court applied the lower good-cause standard because the requests concerned motions in limine.

Reasons for the rulings

The court found good cause to seal portions of documents containing confidential business and financial information relating to the defendants’ operations. It also noted that some requests concerned information materially identical to information the court had previously allowed the parties to seal.

The court denied other requests because the parties did not provide enough support under Civil Local Rule 79-5. In particular, for several requests, the party that had designated the material as confidential did not file the required supporting declaration. The court denied sealing for material designated “Confidential” when the required support was missing.

Document-level rulings

- Docket No. 150: The request to seal excerpts from the defendants’ first motion in limine was denied because the plaintiffs did not provide the required supporting declaration. The request to seal specified excerpts from the defendants’ second motion in limine was granted because they contained confidential business information. The request to seal Exhibits A through D to Julia Allen’s declaration was denied for lack of the required supporting declaration from the plaintiffs, while the request to seal Exhibit E was granted because it contained confidential business information. - Docket No. 154: The requests to seal specified excerpts from the plaintiffs’ second motion in limine and the entirety of Exhibit 1 to Robert Estrin’s declaration were granted because the materials contained confidential business information. - Docket No. 158: The request to seal a specified excerpt from the plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendants’ first motion in limine was denied because the plaintiffs did not show good cause. The request to seal Exhibit C to Robert Estrin’s declaration was denied for the same reason. The requests to seal Exhibits D through H were granted because they contained confidential business information. - Docket No. 159: The request to seal specified excerpts from the plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendants’ second motion in limine was granted because the excerpts contained confidential business information. - Docket No. 163: The request to seal specified excerpts from the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiffs’ first motion in limine was denied because the plaintiffs did not provide the required supporting declaration. The requests to seal specified excerpts from the defendants’ oppositions to the plaintiffs’ second and third motions in limine were granted because the excerpts contained confidential business information. The request to seal Exhibits A through D to Julia Allen’s declaration was denied because the plaintiffs did not provide the required supporting declaration.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Docket Nos. 150, 158, and 163, and granted Docket Nos. 154 and 159. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed the parties to file public versions of all documents for which sealing was denied within seven days. Documents for which the sealing motions were granted would remain under seal.