Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Johnson et al

Filing 201

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 186 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Defendant Corey L. Johnson shall have until 4/25/2014 to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to establ ish compelling reasons why the FDIC-Rs 185 Response should remain under seal. The 185 Response shall remain sealed until 4/25/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COREY L. JOHNSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00209-KJD-PAL
ORDER
(Mtn to Seal - Dkt. #186)

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company, as Receiver’s

14

(“FDIC-R”) Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Defendant Corey L. Johnson’s Employment File.

15

Although the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal does not specify, it appears that the FDIC-R seeks to

16

file Johnson’s employment file under seal in connection with their Response (Dkt. #185) to Johnson’s

17

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #162). The court has considered the Motion.

18

The FDIC-R seeks an Order allowing it to file Mr. Johnson’s employee record file under seal

19

because it “contains salary and other information.” Motion at 2:9-10. As set forth in the court’s Order

20

(Dkt. #61) entered August 14, 2012, the court approved the parties’ blanket protective order to facilitate

21

discovery exchanges, and the court “has not found that any specific documents are secret or

22

confidential.” Order at 1:26-28. Additionally, the Order reminded counsel of their obligation under

23

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), to set forth compelling

24

reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to maintain the secrecy of documents

25

attached to dispositive motions. Id. at 2:5-7.

26

conferring with counsel for Johnson in order to determine whether Johnson want[s] to assert

27

confidentiality as to these documents or withdraw the motion.” Motion at 2:12-14. The court

28

appreciates counsel filed this Motion to comply with its obligations to keep documents designated as

The Motion represents that the FDIC-R “anticipates

1

confidential out of the public record. The burden is on the party designating the documents confidential

2

to establish they should be filed under seal. The FDIC-R’s Motion does not make the particularized

3

showing of compelling reasons required by Kamakana to keep the employment record file submitted in

4

connection with the Response under seal. Moreover, the FDIC-R has not complied with Local Rule 10-

5

5(b) and filed the documents under seal so the court could evaluate them. See LR 10-5(b) (requiring

6

parties to file documents under seal in accordance with the court’s electronic filing procedures).

7

For these reasons,

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

10
11

Plaintiff FDIC-R’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. #186) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

Defendant Corey L. Johnson shall have until April 25, 2014, to file a memorandum of

12

points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to establish compelling

13

reasons why the FDIC-R’s Response (Dkt. #185), should remain under seal.

14

3.

The Response shall remain sealed until April 25, 2014. If Defendant Johnson fails to
18,

15

timely comply with this order the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the Response

16

to make it available on the public docket.

17

Dated this 11th day of April, 2014.

18
19
20
21

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2