Gilbert v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 30

ORDER that the provisions of Paragraph 8 of the parties proposed Stipulated Protective Order 28 permitting the parties to (a) submit documents in sealed envelopes; and (b) file a motion to seal within twenty days of filing the confidential documen ts are NOT APPROVED and are DENIED. The parties shall comply with the requirements of LR 10-5(b), and the Ninth Circuit decision in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), with respect to any documents filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

ERIC GILBERT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01841-JCM-PAL
ORDER

12
13

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information

14

(Dkt. #28) which the court approved, with the exception of a portion of Paragraph 8, to facilitate

15

discovery in this case. This order also reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public access to

16

judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion

17

to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of

18

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

19

A portion of Paragraph 8 of the parties’ proposed stipulation was not approved and was deleted

20

by the court. It contained provisions (a) requiring counsel to “lodge” confidential documents with the

21

court; and (b) allowed counsel twenty days to file a motion to seal after lodging the confidential

22

material. To the extent the parties contemplated submitting documents to the Clerk of the Court in a

23

sealed envelope, the parties are advised this is no longer an accepted practice. With a few exceptions

24

that do not apply to this case, the Clerk of the Court no longer maintains paper records. Special Order

25

109 requires the Clerk of the Court to maintain the official files for all cases filed on or after November

26

7, 2005, in electronic form. The electronic record constitutes the official record of the court. Attorneys

27

must file documents under seal using the court’s electronic filing procedures. See LR 10-5(b).

28

///

1

Additionally, LR 10-5(b) requires a motion to seal be filed contemporaneously with the confidential

2

documents. The Rule provides:

3

Unless otherwise permitted by statute, rule or prior Court order, papers filed
with the Court under seal shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file
those documents under seal, and shall be filed in accordance with the Court’s
electronic filing procedures. If papers are filed under seal pursuant to prior
Court order, the papers shall bear the following notation on the first page,
directly under the case number: “FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO
COURT ORDER DATED __________.” All papers filed under seal will
remain sealed until such time as the Court may deny the motion to seal or
enter an order to unseal them, or the documents are unsealed pursuant to
Local Rule.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Id. Documents filed under seal are not accessible to the public.

10

The court has approved the parties’ blanket protective order to facilitate their discovery

11

exchanges. However, the parties have not shown, and court has not found, that any specific documents

12

are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by affidavits or

13

concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or

14

other confidential information under Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and

15

significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial

16

files and records and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-

17

dispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. See

18

Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to

19

dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public

20

access. Id. at 1180.

21

IT IS ORDERED that:

22

1.

The provisions of Paragraph 8 of the parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt.

23

#28) permitting the parties to (a) submit documents in sealed envelopes; and (b) file a

24

motion to seal within twenty days of filing the confidential documents are NOT

25

APPROVED and are DENIED.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

2.

The parties shall comply with the requirements of LR 10-5(b), and the Ninth Circuit

2

decision in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006),

3

with respect to any documents filed under seal.

4

Dated this 30th day of January, 2012.

5
6
7

________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3