Hansen et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al

Filing 201

ORDER Granting 200 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Seal Response to Order to Show Cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve electronically the 198 Response to the Order to Show Cause and the 199 Declaration o f Sarah M. Banda in support of the Response on the Defendants. Defendants shall provide the Court with its Response to the Response to the Order to Show Cause by 03/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/15/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CC: Defendants' Counsel via email - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
HANSEN, et al.,

)
)
)

8
Plaintiffs,
9
10

vs.

11

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
COMPANY, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-001434-MMDNJK
ORDER

14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Seal Response to
15
Order to Show Cause (#200).
16
BACKGROUND
17
On December 21, 2012, District Judge Du referred this matter to the undersigned Judge
18
for a settlement conference. Docket No. 179. Pursuant to that order, on January 8, 2013, this
19
Court scheduled a settlement conference to be held on January 25, 2013. Docket No. 182. The
20
Settlement Conference was held as scheduled on January 25, 2013, and, at the request of the
21
Plaintiffs, was continued to March 6, 2013, for additional settlement discussions. Docket No.
22
188. On March 6, 2013, this Court ordered Plaintiffs Stephen Tanner Hansen and Clarke
23
LeFevre and their counsel Jerome R. Bowen to show cause in writing why they should not be
24
sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(f), the Court’s inherent authority, and/or Local
25
Rule IA 4-1 on the basis of their failure to comply with this Court’s order. In particular,
26
Plaintiffs and Mr. Bowen were ordered to show cause why the Court should not (1) impose
27
monetary sanctions in the amount of Defendants’ attorney fees in preparing for and attending the
28
March 6, 2013, portion of the settlement conference and (2) impose additional sanctions, up to

1
2

and including entry of default judgment.
On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their Response to the Order to Show Cause and

3

the Declaration of Sarah M. Banda in support of the Response. Docket Nos. 198 and 199,

4

respectively. The Plaintiffs filed both motions under seal and filed the Emergency Motion to Seal

5

Response to Order to Show Cause seeking the Court’s approval to seal both the Response and the

6

Declaration in Support of the Response. Docket No. 200.

7

DISCUSSION

8
9
10
11

To demonstrate good cause to seal a document, “the party seeking protection bears the
burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.2002)).
Here, the Plaintiffs have indicated that their Response to the Order to Show Cause

12

contains statements and information relating to confidential settlement discussions. For this

13

reason, the Plaintiffs argue, their Response should not be public.

14

Although the Plaintiffs do not indicate specifically what information, if revealed, will

15

cause it harm, the Court agrees that settlement conference discussions are not intended for the

16

public and are confidential between the Court and the attending parties. For example, the

17

Plaintiffs’ Response contains statements relating to offers that were allegedly made during the

18

settlement discussions, and that information should not be available to the public. Accordingly,

19

the Response should remain sealed from the public.

20

However, no good cause exists to seal the Response from the Defendants. The

21

Defendants are already aware of the settlement conference discussions because they were at the

22

settlement conference. As the Court indicated before settlement discussions began, all

23

statements, arguments, and offers made by each party during the settlement conference were

24

presented to the opposing side by the Court, unless a party specifically requested otherwise. The

25

Plaintiffs have not indicated what information in the Response, if any, should not be known by

26

the Defendants nor how such information, if revealed, will cause harm.

27
28

Finally, the Court believes that a response by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs’ Response
to the Order to Show Cause would assist the Court in reaching a conclusion on the Order to
2

1

Show Cause. Accordingly, a copy of the Response to the Order to Show Cause and the

2

Declaration of Sarah M. Banda should be served on the Defendants. Defendants are to respond

3

by March 22, 2012.

4

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Seal Response to Order

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

to Show Cause (#200) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve electronically the
Response to the Order to Show Cause (#198) and the Declaration of Sarah M. Banda in support
of the Response (#199) on the Defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants shall provide the Court with its
response to the Response to the Order to Show Cause by March 22, 2013.
DATED this 15th day of March, 2013.

14
15
16
17

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3