Miholich v. The Real Brokerage, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-01038 · 2025-06-04 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Jill L. Burkhardt (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:03Z · confidence high

Defendants moved to file specific documents under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79.2 and the parties' protective order, citing confidential business information. The Court granted the motion, finding good cause for sealing, and directed the Clerk to file the listed documents under seal.

What the court decided	The model
Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal is granted. “Good cause appearing, Defendants’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED.”	agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing under Local Rule 79.2 and cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, which establishes that good cause exists when the documents contain confidential business information. The order recites that the documents include such information, satisfying the standard. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order.

What the court decided

The model

Defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal is granted.

“Good cause appearing, Defendants’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED.”

agree with court
The court applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing under Local Rule 79.2 and cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, which establishes that good cause exists when the documents contain confidential business information. The order recites that the documents include such information, satisfying the standard. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority (Kamakana) that defines it. It recites the factual basis (confidential business information) sufficient to support the finding of good cause. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural sealing order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE MIHOLICH, individually and on Case No.: 24-cv-01038-AGS-JLB behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS v. UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO 14 LOCAL RULE 79.2 AND THE THE REAL BROKERAGE, INC., et al., 15 PARTIES’ PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 43] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Defendants The Real Brokerage, Inc., Real Broker LLC, Real 20 Brokerage Technologies, Inc., and Real Brokerage Technologies LFRO, Inc.’s 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to File Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 22 79.2 and the Parties’ Protective Order (“Motion to Seal”). (ECF No. 43.) Defendants 23 request leave to file under seal certain documents submitted in connection with its Motion 24 to Strike New Arguments Submitted with Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, or, in the Alternative, for 25 Permission to File a Surreply (ECF No. 42). Given the confidential business information 26 included in the documents, the Court finds that Defendant has established good cause for 27 sealing. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 28 1 || Good cause appearing, Defendants’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk 2 Court is DIRECTED to file under seal the unredacted versions of the following: 3 1. Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Amend 4 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 44, Ex. 1); 5 2. Declaration of Nicolle Romero (ECF Nos. 44, 45, Ex. 2); 6 3. Declaration of Garland Brown (ECF No. 46, Ex. 3); 7 4. Declaration of Sharran Srivatsaa (ECF No. 49, Ex. 4); and 8 5. Exhibits A and B of the Declaration of Nicolle Romero (ECF Nos. 47, 48). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 4, 2025 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 12 ited States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28