Dominguez-Hernandez et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 51

ORDER Granting 50 Motion to Seal 37 and 46 . The Court also orders Defendants' counsel Craig Anderson and Tye Hanseen to read Special Orders Nos. 108 and 109 in their entirety and file a declaration, no later than 8/21/14, indicating they have done so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

J.D.H., et al.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPT., et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01300-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL (Docket No. 50)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’
COUNSEL TO READ SPECIAL
ORDERS 108 AND 109

16

It should not be difficult for counsel to follow clear Court orders and rules of practice. See, e.g.,

17

Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998) (“we expect

18

an attorney practicing law in federal court to become familiar with and follow rules applicable to

19

practice in this court”). The lead Plaintiff in this case is a seven year old child. This Court has

20

previously advised the parties of the requirements of Special Order No. 108, including that only a

21

minor’s initials be provided in Court filings. See Docket No. 26; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). The

22

Court warned counsel that the Court expected strict compliance with that rule in the future, and that

23

failure to do so may result in sanctions. See Docket No. 26 at 1-2 (citing Davis v. Clark County Sch.

24

Dist., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 128937, *5 n.3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2013)).

25

Despite the above, the Court has before it a motion to seal documents that Defendants’ counsel

26

incorrectly filed on the public docket with Plaintiff’s full name and to replace them with redacted

27

versions. Docket No. 50. The Court accepts as true Defendants’ counsel’s assertions that the failure

28

to comply with the Court’s order was unintentional. See id. at 2. Be that as it may, the problem with

1

this type of situation is that once a party makes confidential information publicly available through Court

2

filings or proceedings, that information cannot truly be made “un-public” through later Court action.

3

See, e.g., TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., 2012 WL 1432519, *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25,

4

2012) (citing Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004)). That is precisely

5

why the Court requires counsel to take care that personal identifiers are not publicly filed in their papers

6

in the first place, and to acknowledge when logging into CM/ECF that they are aware of that

7

requirement and that they will comply with it.1

8

In light of the above, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal to minimize further dissemination

9

of Plaintiff’s name. Accordingly, the Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to seal the filings

10

at Docket Nos. 37 and 46.

11

In an attempt to ensure that future filings from Defendants do not similarly violate the Court’s

12

orders, the Court also ORDERS Defendants’ counsel Craig Anderson and Tye Hanseen to read Special

13

Order Nos. 108 and 109 in their entirety. Defendants’ counsel shall file a declaration, no later than

14

August 21, 2014, indicating that they have done so. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hanseen are further

15

CAUTIONED that they should expect future non-compliance with the Court’s redaction requirements

16

to result in monetary sanctions.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: August 14, 2014

19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24

1

The CM/ECF login page includes the following:

27

IMPORTANT NOTICE OF REDACTION RESPONSIBILITY: All filers must redact:
Social Security or taxpayer-identification numbers; dates of birth; names of minor children;
financial account numbers; and, in criminal cases, home addresses, in compliance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.2 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1. This requirement applies to all documents, including
attachments.

28

G I understand that, if I file, I must comply with the redaction rules. I have read this notice.

25
26

2