Kristensen v. Credit Payment Services Inc.

Filing 191

ORDER Denying 186 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 06/04/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FLEMMING KRISTENSEN,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:12-cv-00528-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
(Mtn to Seal – Dkt. #186)
CREDIT PAYMENT SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Defendants Credit Payment Services, Inc.’s, Pioneer

13

Services’, LeadPile LLC’s, and Enova International, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Documents

14

Under Seal Pursuant to Civil L.R. 10-5 (Dkt. #186) filed May 28, 2014.

15

considered the Motion.

The court has

16

Defendants seek an order, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Practice 10-5, allowing them to

17

file Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Gregory T. Wolf in Support of Defendants’ Reply to Second

18

Joint Motion to Extend the Deadlines for Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and Proposed Joint

19

Pretrial Order (Dkt. #187-1) filed May 28, 2014. Exhibit 3 consists of the deposition transcript

20

of Plaintiff Flemming Kristensen. Defendants assert this transcript was designated confidential

21

under the Protective Order (Dkt. #32) and Amended Protective Order (Dkt. #145) entered by the

22

court in this case because it contains confidential and proprietary business information.

23

As an initial matter, Local Rule 10-5(b) requires that a party should file confidential

24

documents under seal along with a contemporaneous motion to seal. Defendants have not filed

25

Exhibit 3 to the Wolf Declaration under seal, and the court to evaluate it.

26

Defendants’ reliance on the Protective Order and Amended Protective Order is misplaced. The

27

Protective Order and the Amended Protective Order provide that their purpose is to facilitate

28

discovery exchanges. See Protective Order (Dkt. #32) at ¶ 1; Amended Protective Order (Dkt.
1

Additionally,

1

#145) at ¶ 1. The parties did not show, and the court did not find, that any specific documents

2

were secret or confidential. At the hearing on the motion to compel on May 29, 2014 counsel for

3

Plaintiff indicated he did not believe the entire transcript was entitled to be sealed, and did not

4

request that the portion cited by Defendant be sealed.

5

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records.

6

See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The court

7

carved out an exception to this presumption of access for materials attached to non-dispositive

8

motions where the movant makes a particularized showing of good cause under Rule 26(c) of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that rebuts the public’s right of access. See Foltz v. State Farm

10

Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

11

F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties have not made such a showing.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. #186) is

14
15

DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2014.

16
17
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2