Mellor v. West Trop Storage, LLC

Filing 68

ORDER denying 65 Request for Privacy, which is construed as a Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/6/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3
4

ELI MELLOR,
Case No. 2:15–cv–168–APG–VCF
2:13-cv-01502-JCM-VCF

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

WEST TROP STORAGE, LLC, et al.,

MOTION TO SEAL (#65)

Defendants.

8
9

Before the court is Eli Mellor’s “Request for Privacy” (#65), which the court construes as a Motion

10

to Seal. For the reasons stated below, Mellor’s Motion to Seal is denied.
11

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to
12
13
14
15

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). This includes permitting a party to file documents under seal. See FED. R. CIV. P.
26(c)(1)(F)–(H).

16

The court has “broad discretion” to enter any of these orders. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467

17

U.S. 20, 36 (1984). And the party requesting one carries a “heavy burden.” See, e.g., Blankenship

18

v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). Rule 26(c) requires the moving party to make a

19

“particularized showing.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

This showing is akin to what Iqbal and Twombly require: formulaic recitations, legal conclusions, and

21

“[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy

22

the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing
23

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986)). “To justify a protective order, one
24

of Rule 26(c)(1)’s enumerated harms must be illustrated ‘with a particular and specific demonstration of
25

1

fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d
1
2

884, 901 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Because protective orders, sealing orders, and stipulated

3

agreements serve different purposes, the nature of the “particularized showing” that is required to obtain

4

each order necessarily differs.

5

Additionally, Rule 26(c)(1) states that “[t]he motion must include a certification that the movant

6

has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the

7

dispute without court action.”

8
9
10

Here, Mellor moves to seal his in forma pauperis application because it wants it to “remain
private.” Mellor’s request is denied. He failed to make a “particularized showing,” see Foltz v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d at 1138, or certify that he met and conferred with the Defendants before

11

seeking court action.
12

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
13
14
15
16

IT IS ORDERED that Eli Mellor’s Motion to Seal (#65) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE

17

Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

18

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

19

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

20

may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

21
22

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the

23

right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.
24
25

2

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
1
2

454 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

Pursuant to Local Special Rule 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with

4

the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing

5

party of the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action.

6

See LSR 2-2.

7

DATED this 6th day of April, 2015.

8
9

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3