Korba v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 15

ORDER that the parties shall comply with the requirements of LR 10-5(b), and the Ninth Circuits decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, with respect to any documents filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/19/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

ZAN KORBA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01391-GMN-PAL
ORDER

12
13

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulation and Protective Order (Dkt. #13), which the court

14

approved to facilitate discovery in this case. This order reminds counsel that there is a presumption of

15

public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal

16

must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and

17

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); see also LR 10-5(b).

18
19
20
21
22
23

Local Rule 10-5(b) provides:
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.

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

access. Id. at 1180.

9
10
11

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the requirements of LR 10-5(b), and the
Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, with respect to any documents filed under seal.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2012.

12
13
14

________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2