United States et al v. Jaynes Corporation et al

Filing 45

ORDER that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rules 10-5(a) and 10-5(b), the Ninth Circuits decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect to any documents submitted for in camera review or filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/21/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
UNITED STATES,
12
Plaintiff(s),
13
vs.
14
JAYNES CORPORATION, et al.,
15
Defendant(s).
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01907-APG-NJK
ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 43), which the Court

18

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

19

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

20

under seal or in camera must submit a motion establishing a basis for doing so and must comply

21

with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th

22

Cir. 2006).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

access. Id. at 1180.1

3

The parties have indicated that some discovery materials in this case may implicate issues of

4

national security. To the extent such materials are relevant to any Court proceeding, they shall not

5

be filed and instead shall be submitted in camera for the Court’s review. All such submissions shall

6

comply with the requirements outlined in Local Rule 10-5(a). Such a submission shall also be

7

accompanied by a motion explaining why the materials implicate issues of national security and

8

warrant secrecy.

9

To the extent materials are confidential but do not implicate issues of national security, such

10

materials shall be filed under seal along with a concurrent motion to seal and shall otherwise comply

11

with the requirements outlined in Local Rule 10-5(b).

12

If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated

13

a document as subject to protection pursuant to the stipulated protective order, the movant must

14

notify the opposing party (or non-party) at least seven days prior to submitting/filing the designated

15

document. The designating party must then make a good faith determination if the relevant standard

16

for sealing is met. To the extent the designating party does not believe the relevant standard for

17

sealing can be met, it shall indicate that the document may be filed publicly no later than four days

18

after receiving notice of the intended filing. To the extent the designating party believes the relevant

19

standard for sealing can be met, it shall provide a declaration supporting that assertion no later than

20

four days after receiving notice of the intended filing. The submitting/filing party shall then attach

21

that declaration to its motion to seal the designated material.

22

IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rules 10-5(a)

23

and 10-5(b), the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined

24

above, with respect to any documents submitted for in camera review or filed under seal. To the

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

extent any aspect of the stipulated protective order may conflict with this order, that aspect of the

2

stipulated protective order is hereby superseded with this order.

3
4
5

DATED: May 21, 2014
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3