Schmidt v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al

Filing 154

ORDER that 147 Motion to Seal 150 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice for the parties to file any motions and supporting affidavits they deem necessary in light of this Order. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall show cau se, in writing no later than September 20, 2013, why Plaintiff David Schmidt's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc.'s and Davol, Inc.'s Motion to Bifurcate Trial 116 and Plaintiff David Schmidt's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc.'s and Davol, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 120 and accompanying exhibits should not be unsealed. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 8/20/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6

DAVID SCHMIDT,
7

Plaintiff,
8

v.
9

C.R. BARD, INC. and DAVOL, INC.,
10

Defendants.
11

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-CV-00978-PMP-PAL

ORDER

12

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for

13

Reconsideration (Doc. #147), filed on August 19, 2013. The Court will deny the Motion.

14

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana

15

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are

16

presumptively publicly accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial

17

record “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption.” Id. In the case of

18

dispositive motions, the party seeking to seal the record “must articulate compelling reasons

19

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

20

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

21

process.” Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

22

Among the compelling reasons which may justify sealing a record are “when such court

23

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to

24

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

25

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation omitted). However, avoiding a litigant’s “embarrassment,

26

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to
seal its records.” Id.

1

Here, Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit articulating why its Motion for

2

Reconsideration should be sealed in its entirety. Plaintiff states in the Motion to Seal that

3

the Motion for Reconsideration “describes and discusses the contents of deposition

4

transcripts and documents that are currently designated as confidential under the Protective

5

Order” that the parties entered into with respect to discovery in this matter. Plaintiff does

6

not provide any explanation of the portions of the motion or its exhibits that should be

7

sealed and why they should be sealed. The fact that the parties entered into a protective

8

order for discovery purposes is not a compelling reason to seal court records which

9

presumptively are publicly accessible. Should the parties have privacy concerns regarding

10

certain information in the record, redaction, rather than wholesale sealing of motions and

11

exhibits may be appropriate. See United States District Court, District of Nevada Special

12

Order No. 108 (providing that “parties shall refrain from including, or shall partially redact”

13

social security numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers,

14

and home addresses).

15

The Court therefore will deny the Motion to Seal. For these same reasons, the

16

Court will order the parties to show cause why Plaintiff David Schmidt’s Memorandum in

17

Opposition to Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc.’s and Davol, Inc.’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial

18

(Doc. #116) and Plaintiff David Schmidt’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants C.R.

19

Bard, Inc.’s and Davol, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #120) and

20

accompanying exhibits should not be unsealed.

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion

22

for Reconsideration (Doc. #147) is hereby DENIED without prejudice for the parties to file

23

any motions and supporting affidavits they deem necessary in light of this Order.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall show cause, in writing no later

25

than September 20, 2013, why Plaintiff David Schmidt’s Memorandum in Opposition to

26

Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc.’s and Davol, Inc.’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial (Doc. #116) and
2

1

Plaintiff David Schmidt’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc.’s and

2

Davol, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #120) and accompanying exhibits

3

should not be unsealed. If the parties fail to show cause, the sealed filings at Docket Nos.

4

116 and 120 will be unsealed. A party seeking to seal only portions of a document shall

5

provide a proposed redacted copy of the document.

6
7
8
9

DATED: August 20, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3