In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1566)

Filing 2378

ORDER denying without prejudice ECF Nos. 2282 , 2295 , 2313 , 2331 , 2355 , 2359 , and 2366 Motions to Seal; directing the documents referenced in the motions to remain under seal until 5/13/2016; giving the designating party or parties until 5/13/2016 to file particularized showing why they should remain under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION,

MDL Docket No. 1566
Base Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL

9
10
11

ORDER
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS

(Mots. to File Under Seal – Dkt. #2282,
#2295, #2313, #2331, #2355, #2359, #2366)

12

This matter is before the Court on numerous Motions to File Under Seal (Dkt. #2282,

13

#2295, #2313, #2331, #2355, #2359, #2366). The Motions seeks leave to file under seal certain

14

documents and exhibits referenced in the related filings. The subject documents were filed under

15

seal because counsel for opposing parties designated the documents as “confidential” pursuant to

16

the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. #1147), which requires the moving parties to request

17

permission to file such documents under seal. See also Protective Order Governing Confidentiality

18

of Documents (Dkt. #1152); Dec. 24, 2015 Order (Dkt. #2257) (directing the parties to comply

19

with the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

20

447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)).

21

confidentiality of the documents.

The movants have expressed no opinion regarding the

22

A party (or parties) who designated documents as confidential is required to meet the

23

Kamakana standards to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial files, records,

24

motions, and any exhibits.

25

temporarily so that the designating parties and their counsel may confer about what, if any, portions

26

of the documents should be sealed or redacted. See In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland,

27

661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (sealing of entire documents is improper when any confidential

28

information can be redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public). If a

The Court will allow the subject documents to remain sealed

1

1

designating party determines that a filing or portion thereof should remain sealed, it is required to

2

file within 14 days an appropriate memorandum of points and authorities making a particularized

3

showing why the documents should remain under seal. Pursuant to Kamakana and its progeny,

4

any request to seal must set forth either good cause or compelling reasons to support sealing. See

5

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that the

6

standards courts apply to sealing requests turn on the relevance of the documents to the substantive

7

merits of a case—not on the relief sought).

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS ORDERED:

10
11
12
13

1. The Motions to Seal (Dkt. #2282, #2295, #2313, #2331, #2355, #2359, #2366) are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The Documents / Exhibits referenced in the Motions shall remain under seal until May
13, 2016.

14

3. The designating party (or parties) shall have until May 13, 2016, to file a memorandum

15

of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a

16

particularized showing as to why the documents should remain under seal.

17

4. If the designating party (or parties) fail(s) to timely comply with this Order, the Clerk

18

of the Court will be directed to unseal the documents to make them available on the

19

public docket.

20

Dated this 28th day of April, 2016.

21
22

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2