Kristensen v. Credit Payment Services Inc.

Filing 217

ORDER denying 213 Motion to Seal without prejudice. CPS shall file the exhibits requested to be sealed in this motion, under seal in compliance with LR 10-5(b). CPS shall have until August 6, 2014, in which to file a Memorandum of Points and A uthorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing of good cause why Exhibits 2 and 6 should remain under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

FLEMMING KRISTENSEN,

7
8
9
10

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

v.

ORDER
(Mtn to Seal – Dkt. #213)

CREDIT PAYMENT SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Defendant Credit Payment Services, Inc.’s (“CPS”)

13

Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Civil LR 10-5 (Dkt. #213) filed July

14

21, 2014. The court has considered the Motion.

15

CPS seeks an order pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Practice 10-5(b) allowing it to file

16

Exhibits 2 and 6 to its Opposition (Dkt. #214) to Plaintiff Flemming Kristensen’s Motion to

17

Compel (Dkt. #199) under seal. Exhibit 2 is the Expert Declaration of Lisa C. Snow, which was

18

designated “Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective Orders (Dkt. ##32, 145) entered by

19

the court to facilitate discovery exchanges in this case. Exhibit 6 is deposition transcript excerpts

20

from the deposition of James Gee, which was designated confidential under the Protective

21

Orders. CPS contends good cause exists to file the exhibits under seal because they contain

22

“confidential and proprietary business information” and because the documents were designated

23

confidential/attorney’s eyes only under the Protective Orders.

24

As an initial matter, CPS has not complied with LR 10-5 in filing this Motion to Seal.

25

Although the Motion indicates CPS would file the exhibits under seal contemporaneously with

26

the Motion to Seal, it has not. Accordingly, the court cannot properly evaluate the documents.

27

LR 10-5 requires CPS to electronically file its Opposition, including all exhibits, under seal

28

along with a contemporaneous motion to seal.

1

Further, Additionally, CPS’s reliance on the Protective Orders is misplaced.

The

2

Protective Orders provide that their purpose is to facilitate discovery exchanges. See Protective

3

Order (Dkt. #32) at ¶ 1; Amended Protective Order (Dkt. #145) at ¶ 1. The parties did not show,

4

and the court did not find, that any specific documents were secret or confidential.

5

Additionally, CPS’s conclusory statement that the exhibits contain “confidential and

6

proprietary business information” is insufficient to meet its burden of making a particularized

7

showing of good cause for each item they seek to file under seal. See Kamakana v. City and

8

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). CPS must make the required particularized

9

showing for each document it seeks to seal by showing that “specific prejudice or harm will

10

result.” See, e.g., San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th

11

Cir. 1999). ”Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

12

reasoning do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

13

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Beckman Ind., Inc. v. Internat’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476

14

(9th Cir. 1992)). CPS not asserted or shown specific harm or prejudice that will result from

15

disclosure of any particular document it seeks to seal.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS ORDERED:

18

1. CPS’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. #213) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

19

2. CPS shall file the exhibits requested to be sealed in this motion, under seal in

20

compliance with LR 10-5(b).

21

3. CPS shall have until August 6, 2014, in which to file a Memorandum of Points and

22

Authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized

23

showing of good cause why Exhibits 2 and 6 should remain under seal.

24

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2014.

25
___________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

-2-