Werbicky et al v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing 82

ORDER that Plaintiffs, no later than 10/10/2014, serve on defendant a copy of 57 Reply and Exhibits 5 and 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant, no later than 10/17/2014, file a notice stating what portions of 57 Reply and any exhibits warrant secrecy, and which it contends may be filed publicly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

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

Pending before the Court are recent issues concerning the filing of documents under seal

17

and/or for in camera review. See Docket Nos. 71, 72. The Court now has before it a response from

18

Plaintiffs to the Court’s order to show cause, as well as a renewed motion to seal filed by Defendant.

19

At this time, the Court will not resolve the pending renewed motion to seal, but it orders the parties

20

as follows with respect to Plaintiffs’ response to the order to show cause.

21

First, Plaintiffs assert that they only filed Docket No. 57 under seal and submitted Exhibits 5

22

and 6 to the Court for its in camera review based on Defendant’s contention that “these documents

23

contain proprietary information.” See Docket No. 75 at 2. It appears that Plaintiff may not have

24

served all of Docket No. 57 and Exhibits 5 and 6 on Defendant, however. See Docket No. 80 at 2

25

n.2. To that end, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs, no later than October 10, 2014, to serve on

26

Defendant a copy of Docket No. 57 and Exhibits 5 and 6.

27
28

Second, although Defendant’s motion to seal addresses Exhibit 6, it does not argue that
Exhibit 5 or any of the material filed under seal at Docket No. 57 merits secrecy. As such, the Court

1

hereby ORDERS Defendant, no later than October 17, 2014, to file a notice stating explicitly what

2

portions of Docket No. 57 and any exhibits in support of that brief warrant secrecy, and which it

3

contends may be filed publicly.

4

Third, Plaintiff Robert Werbicky (an attorney) indicated that he “did not know how to file

5

under seal.” See Docket No. 75 at 3. Mr. Werbicky is expected to familiarize himself with the rules

6

of the Court and comply with them. Mr. Werbicky’s statement is especially puzzling given that the

7

Court issued a separate order explaining the procedures and standards for sealing. Docket No. 55.

8

The Court expects all counsel and parties to strictly comply with all Court orders and rules, and the

9

failure to do so in the future may result in sanctions.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: October 8, 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