Miholich v. The Real Brokerage, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill L. Burkhardt (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Kyle Miholich moved to file under seal certain documents containing confidential business information submitted in connection with a motion to compel. The Court granted the motion to seal and directed the Clerk to file the unredacted documents under seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Application to File Under Seal (ECF No. 66) is granted.“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 66)” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard from Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, which is the correct standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the documents contained confidential business information, which is a recognized basis for establishing good cause. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
Plaintiff's previous Motion to Seal Documents Marked Confidential and to File Redacted Motion (ECF No. 38) is denied as moot.“DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s previous Motion to Seal Documents Marked Confidential and to File Redacted Motion (ECF No. 38).” | agree with court Because the court granted the current motion to seal the unredacted documents, the previous motion to seal redacted documents is no longer relevant or necessary. Denying a motion as moot when a subsequent order resolves the underlying issue is procedurally correct. |
The Clerk of Court is directed to file under seal Plaintiff's unredacted Motion to Compel Further Responses from Non-Party Lofty, Inc. to Subpoena including Exhibit C and Exhibit D.“Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file under seal Plaintiff's unredacted Motion to Compel Further Responses from Non-Party Lofty, Inc. to Subpoena including Exhibit C (TRB00001—46) and Exhibit D (TRB00166—86).” | agree with court This is the operative relief implementing the grant of the motion to seal. It is consistent with the finding of good cause. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit (Kamakana) and applies it to the facts presented (confidential business information). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural sealing order. It does not skip any necessary arguments or authorities for this specific type of motion.
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 PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER v. SEAL 14 THE REAL BROKERAGE, INC., et al., 15 [ECF No. 66] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Kyle Miholich’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to File Under 20 Seal (“Motion to Seal”). (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff seeks to file under seal certain documents 21 submitted in connection with its redacted Motion to Compel Further Responses from Non- 22 Party Lofty, Inc. to Subpoena (ECF No. 40). Given the confidential business information 23 included in the documents, the Court finds that good cause has been established for 24 sealing. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 25 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 66) and 26 DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s previous Motion to Seal Documents Marked Confidential 27 and to File Redacted Motion (ECF No. 38). 28 /// 1 || Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file under seal Plaintiff's unredacted 2 ||Motion to Compel Further Responses from Non-Party Lofty, Inc. to Subpoena including 3 || Exhibit C (TRB00001—46) and Exhibit D (TRB00166—86). (ECF No. 67.) 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: June 5, 2025 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 7 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28