Greenspun et al Stephens Media, LLC et al

Filing 87

ORDER Granting 83 Motion to Seal 84 Affidavit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRIAN L. GREENSPUN, et al.,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:13-cv-01494-JCM-PAL
Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER
(Mtn to File Under Seal – Dkt. #83)

STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Affidavit in Support of

14

Stipulation and Order Under Seal (Dkt. #83) filed April 1, 2014. The Motion requests

15

permission to file an affidavit of E. Leif Reid in support of the parties’ Stipulation for Plaintiffs

16

to File a Response to Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP’s Renewed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

17

(Dkt. #82).

18

Pursuant to Local Rule 10-5(b), Plaintiffs’ counsel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP

19

(“LRR”), seeks an order allowing them to file an affidavit of attorney E. Leif Reid under seal in

20

support of the parties’ Stipulation for Plaintiffs to file a Response to LRR’s Renewed Motion to

21

Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. #70). Concurrently with the Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed

22

the Affidavit (Dkt. #84) under seal as required by LR 10-5(b). Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that

23

good cause exists for the Affidavit to remain under sea. Specifically, LRR represents the

24

Affidavit contains information learned through privileged attorney-client communications and

25

concerns a strictly confidential transaction.

26

As a general matter, there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See

27

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth

28

Circuit has carved out an exception to this presumption of access for materials attached to non-

1

dispositive motions where the movant makes a particularized showing of good cause under Rule

2

26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that rebuts the public’s right of access. See Foltz v.

3

State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips v. Gen. Motors

4

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Nevada law, confidential communications

5

between an attorney or attorney’s representative and a client or the client’s representative for the

6

purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services are privileged from disclosure.

7

NRS 49.095. The court has reviewed the Affidavit and finds that it contains information learned

8

through confidential attorney-client communications about a strictly confidential matter.

9

Therefore, the court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel has made a particularized showing of good cause

10

for the Affidavit to remain under seal.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Motion to File Affidavit Under Seal (Dkt.

13
14

#83) is GRANTED. The Affidavit of R. Leif Reid (Dkt. #84) shall remain under seal.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2014.

15
16
17

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-