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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?