Werbicky et al v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing 102

ORDER Granting 80 Motion to Seal re Exhibit D to 65 Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibit 16 to 59 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
ROBERT E. WERBICKY, et al.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01567-JAD-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 80)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC’s renewed motion to seal.

17

Docket No. 80. Defendant seeks leave to keep under seal Exhibit D to its motion for summary

18

judgment (Docket No. 65-1) and Exhibit 16 to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment

19

(Docket No. 59). The Court finds this motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local

20

Rule 78-2.

21

To seal a document filed in relation to a dispositive motion, the movant must provide

22

“compelling reasons” to warrant secrecy. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

23

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Exhibit 16 is Defendant’s Servicing Agreement, which the Court

24

has found through an order issued concurrently herewith merits secrecy. For the same reasons as

25

outlined in that order, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to seal as to Exhibit 16. Because that

26

exhibit was improperly submitted for in camera review rather than filed on the docket under seal, the

27

Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs to file, no later than November 6, 2014, a copy of Exhibit 16 on

28

the docket under seal.

1

Exhibit D consists of audit manuals. See Docket No. 80 at 4-6. Defendant argues that the

2

audit manuals constitute trade secrets, that Defendant maintains the confidentiality of their contents,

3

and that revelation of the audit manuals would result in Defendant being competitively

4

disadvantaged. See Docket No. 80 at 6-8. Defendant also argues that the exhibit cannot be easily

5

redacted while leaving other meaningful information available to the public. See id. at 9. The Court

6

agrees that compelling reasons exist to allow Exhibit D to be filed under seal and hereby GRANTS

7

the motion to seal as to Exhibit D. Because that exhibit was improperly submitted for in camera

8

review rather than filed on the docket under seal, the Court further ORDERS Defendant to file, no

9

later than November 6, 2014, a copy of Exhibit D on the docket under seal.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: October 29, 2014

12
13

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2