J.M. Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Uni-Ter Underwriting Management Corporation et al

Filing 74

ORDER that 68 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until April 2, 2014, to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing o f good cause why the documents attached to the Uni-Ter Defendant's claim construction brief should remain under seal. The Uni-Ter Defendants' Notice of Filing Documents Under Seal 69 shall remain under seal until April 2, 2014. If Plainti ff fails to timely comply with this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the documents to make them available on the public docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/24/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

J.M. WOODWORTH RISK RETENTION
GROUP,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNI-TER UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT
)
CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00911-APG-PAL
ORDER
(Mtn to File Under Seal - Dkt. #68)

14
15

This matter is before the court on Defendants Uni-Ter Underwriting Management

16

Corporation’s, Uni-Ter Risk Management Services Corporation’s, and Uni-Ter’s Claims Services

17

Corporation’s (together, the “Uni-Ter Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal

18

(Dkt. #68) filed March 10, 2014. The court has considered the Motion.

19

The Motion seeks an order pursuant to LR 10-5(b) permitting the Uni-Ter Defendants to file

20

the following documents under seal in support of their opening claim construction brief: (a) Plaintiff’s

21

meeting minutes; (b) Certificate of Authority #18273 issued by the State of Nevada to Plaintiff; (c)

22

excerpts of Plaintiff’s Nevada Captive Application for Authority; and (d) transcript of Mr. Louis E.

23

Pleninger’s deposition taken February 13, 2014. The Uni-Ter Defendants represent that Plaintiff has

24

designated these documents as confidential pursuant to the court’s Protective Order (Dkt. #39), which

25

was entered January 22, 2014. The Uni-Ter Defendants represent that revealing the terms of these

26

documents may disclose Plaintiff’s commercial information, including its business plan, organization,

27

and business deliberations.

28

///

1

As an initial matter, the Uni-Ter Defendants’ reliance on the court’s Order (Dkt. #39) is

2

misplaced. As set forth in the court’s Order (Dkt. #44), the court approved the parties’ blanket

3

protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges, and the court “has not found that any specific

4

documents are secret or confidential.” Order (Dkt. #44) at 2:2-5.

5

The Uni-Ter Defendants have not made a showing of compelling reasons or good cause to

6

support sealing the documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.

7

2006), requires a party to set forth compelling reasons to seal documents attached to dispositive

8

motions and good cause to seal documents attached to non-dispositive motions. The court’s own

9

research found one case on point. In Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Inc., the court considered a sealing

10

request related “to a non-dispositive claim construction brief” that was not connected to a summary

11

judgment and found the good cause standard for sealing applied. See 2013 WL 5913756 at * (Oct. 31,

12

2013) (citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).

13

Here, the claim construction brief is also not attached to any dispositive motion, and the court will

14

therefore apply the good cause standard.

15

A party seeking to seal documents attached to non-dispositive motions must make a

16

“particularized showing under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c).” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180

17

(citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Uni-

18

Ter Defendants represent that revealing the terms of the documents “may disclose Plaintiff’s

19

commercial information, including its business plan, organization, and business deliberations.” Motion

20

at 2:21-24. The court appreciates that the motion to seal was filed to comply with the Uni-Ter

21

Defendants’ obligation to treat documents designated by opposing counsel as confidential, but

22

statement Plaintiff has designated the documents as confidential does not establish good cause for

23

sealing the documents attached to a non dispositive motion filed with the court.

24

For these reasons,

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

1.

27
28

The Uni-Ter Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. #68) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

Plaintiff shall have until April 2, 2014, to file a memorandum of points and authorities
2

1

and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing of good

2

cause why the documents attached to the Uni-Ter Defendant’s claim construction brief

3

should remain under seal.

4

3.

The Uni-Ter Defendants’ Notice of Filing Documents Under Seal (Dkt. #69) shall

5

remain under seal until April 2, 2014. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order,

6

the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the documents to make them available on the

7

public docket.

8

Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.

9
10
11
12

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3