Meyers v. Walgreen Co.

Filing 15

ORDER that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 10-5(b), the Ninth Circuits decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect to any documents filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/9/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
DENISE MEYERS,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
WALGREEN CO., et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01697-APG-NJK
ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 13), which the Court

16

approved to facilitate discovery in this case. This order reminds counsel that there is a presumption

17

of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under

18

seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v.

19

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

20

The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures, and with a few exceptions not applicable

21

here, the Clerk of the Court no longer maintains paper records. Special Order 109 requires the Clerk

22

of the Court to maintain the official files for all cases filed on or after November 7, 2005, in

23

electronic form. The electronic record constitutes the official record of the court. Attorneys must file

24

documents under seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule 10-5(b). That

25

rule provides:

26
27
28

Unless otherwise permitted by statute, rule or prior Court order, papers filed
with the Court under seal shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file
those documents under seal, and shall be filed in accordance with the Court’s
electronic filing procedures. If papers are filed under seal pursuant to prior
Court order, the papers shall bear the following notation on the first page,

1

directly under the case number: “FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO
COURT ORDER DATED __________.” All papers filed under seal will
remain sealed until such time as the Court may deny the motion to seal or
enter an order to unseal them, or the documents are unsealed pursuant to
Local Rule.

2
3
4

Id. Documents filed under seal are not accessible to the public.

5

The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But

6

there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret or

7

confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or concrete

8

examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other

9

confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and

10

significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial

11

files and records and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to

12

nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access.

13

See Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to

14

dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public

15

access. Id. at 1180.1
If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has

16
17

designated a document as confidential, the opposing party (or non-party) shall file a declaration

18

establishing good cause for the sealing along with a proposed order, or shall withdraw the

19

designation. The declaration shall be filed within seven days of service on the opposing party (or

20

non-party) of the request for a sealing order. If the declaration is not filed as required, the Court

21

may order the document filed in the public record.

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

1

Additional information regarding the requirements for filing under seal can be found at The
Vaccine Center LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013)
(discussing, inter alia, the standards for sealing, standard for redaction rather than sealing entire
documents, and impact of the stipulated protective order on a motion to seal).
2

1

IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 10-5(b),

2

the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with

3

respect to any documents filed under seal.

4

DATED: January 9, 2014

5
6

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3