Werbicky et al v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing 72

ORDER Denying without prejudice 67 Motion to Seal. Renewed Motion due by 10/6/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/29/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
ROBERT E. WERBICKY, et al.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01567-JAD-NJK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 67)

The undersigned outlined the procedures for the parties to file materials under seal. See

12
13

Docket No. 55. Pending before the Court is Defendant Green Tree Servicing’s motion to seal.

14

Docket No. 67. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to seal is hereby DENIED without

15

prejudice. Defendant shall file a renewed motion to seal no later than October 6, 2014. The failure

16

to comply with this order may result in an order unsealing documents.

17

The pending motion to seal has numerous defects. First, the Court is unable to discern

18

precisely what information Defendant seeks to seal. The motion itself refers to Exhibit D submitted

19

in relation to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but then seeks sealing of Exhibit D “and

20

any other documents designated as confidential and submitted for in camera review.” See Docket

21

No. 67 at 1-2.1 As an initial matter, a motion to seal must state with particularity what document(s)

22

and information merits secrecy.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The presentation of the motion to seal is very confusing. While it appears to center on “Exhibit
D,” the in camera submission relates to an “inspection of Exhibits B and C” and then refers to sealing
exhibit “B.” See Docket No. 68 at 1. Although not entirely clear, it appears that perhaps Defendant
divided “Exhibit D” into separate Exhibits B and C. See Docket No. 67-1 at 3. Similarly, the motion to
seal identifies Exhibit D, but also asserts that “exhibits” and “documents” containing purportedly
confidential information should be sealed. See Docket No. 67 at 3.

1

Second, Defendant submitted more than 100 pages of documents to the Court in camera.

2

The Court does not seal documents en masse. Instead, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the

3

sealing of entire documents is improper when any confidential information can be redacted while

4

leaving meaningful information available to the public. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

5

331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in

6

Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court is unclear why entire documents must be

7

sealed rather than being filed publicly with limited redactions.

8

Third, as noted above, Defendant submitted extensive documentation for in camera review.

9

It appears that such documents have already been provided to Plaintiffs, however. See Docket No.

10

67 at 1 n.1. Given that Plaintiffs already appear to have a copy of the documents, it is not clear to

11

the Court why Defendant is resorting to an in camera review rather than following the typical

12

procedures for filing confidential documents on the docket under seal, accompanied by a motion to

13

seal. See Local Rule 10-5(b).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: September 29, 2014

16
17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2