Sidlow et al v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.

Filing 71

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/21/16: Plaintiffs' request to seal Exhibit P to its opposition 69 is hereby denied, and Plaintiffs are instructed to refile their request to seal pursuant to the requirements of Local Rule 141(b) within 14 days of the entry of this Order.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FAITH SIDLOW a.k.a. FAITH SOARESWILSON, and RICHARD NITIDO,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15
16

No. 1:14-CV-00657-TLN-SAB

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through
20, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

On December 18, 2015, Defendant Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Defendant Nextstar”)

19
20

filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiffs Faith Sidlow and Richard Nitido

21

(“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to continue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (“Rule

22

56(d)”) (ECF No. 66), as well as an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

23

(ECF No. 68). As Exhibit P to Plaintiffs’ opposition, Plaintiffs included a document that they

24

believe is confidential pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 51). (ECF

25

No. 68.) Plaintiffs then filed a notice of request to seal Exhibit P. (ECF No. 69.) Because these

26

various filings cause confusion on the docket, the Court will address all issues within this single

27

Order.

28

Having performed a cursory review of Plaintiffs’ motion to continue, the Court finds that
1

1

the motion has sufficient merit to delay consideration of Defendants’ summary judgment motion

2

until the motion to continue can be fully briefed by the parties and decided by the Court.

3

Therefore, at this time, the Court finds it in the interest of judicial efficiency to make a

4

determination on Plaintiffs’ motion to continue prior to addressing Defendants’ motion for

5

summary judgment. The parties should continue to brief both motions by the timeline required

6

under the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), but should be aware

7

that the Court will resolve the motion to continue first.

8
9

Further, Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibit P to its opposition (ECF No. 69) is hereby
denied, and Plaintiffs are instructed to refile their request to seal pursuant to the requirements of

10

Local Rule 141(b) within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Local Rule 141(b) requires the

11

moving party to provide the statutory or other authority for sealing; the requested duration; the

12

identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents; and if

13

applicable, the basis for excluding any party from service. Plaintiffs, as the party seeking to file a

14

document with this Court, must request that the document be sealed. If the parties disagree about

15

the application of their protective order, they are directed to either resolve the issue between

16

themselves or, if they must, to file separately for clarification with the Court. Under no

17

circumstances are the parties to file undeveloped and unsupported requests to seal documents

18

because they cannot agree whether a document should be sealed; nor is any party ever to submit

19

documentation to this Court that is marked as “confidential” without simultaneously filing a

20

request to seal that document. Further failure to comply with the rules of this Court in this

21

manner will result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2016

24
25

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2