Richardson v. Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER that 102 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and 104 Request for Sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 105 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder in Defendant HRHH's Similar Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 106 Defendant Bennie R. Mancino's Motion f or Sanctions and Joinder in Defendant HRHH's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must seal Plaintiff Leon Richardson's responses to the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 98 and 99 ) in their en tirety.FURTHER ORDERED by March 29, 2016, Plaintiff Leon Richardson must refile his responses to the motions for summary judgment with complete redaction of all text in exhibit six in both of the responses for the public record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
LEON RICHARDSON,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HRHH GAMING SENIOR MEZZ, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

13

Case No. 2:13-cv-01913-GMN-CWH
ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant HRHH Gaming Senior Mezz LLC’s (“HRHH”)

14

Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary

15

Judgment, and Request for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Violation of Stipulated Protective Order

16

Governing Confidential Information (ECF Nos. 102, 104), filed on February 23, 2016. Plaintiff did

17

not file a response. Defendant HRHH filed notices (ECF Nos. 111, 112) on March 15, 2016,

18

indicating that their motions are unopposed.

19

Also before the Court is Defendant Bennie R. Mancino’s Motion for Leave to File Under

20

Seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder in Defendant

21

HRHH’s Similar Motion (ECF No. 105), filed on February 23, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a

22

response. Defendant Mancino filed a notice (ECF No. 113) on March 16, 2016, indicating that his

23

motion is unopposed.

24

Also before the Court is Defendant Bennie R. Mancino’s Motion for Sanctions and Joinder

25

in Defendant HRHH’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 106), filed on February 23, 2016. Plaintiff

26

did not file a response. Defendant Mancino filed a notice (ECF No. 114) on March 16, 2016,

27

indicating that his motion is unopposed.

28

///

1

Defendant HRHH requests that the Court seal exhibit six to Plaintiff’s response to

2

Defendant HRHH’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 98-7), arguing that the exhibit is

3

subject to the protective order (ECF No. 58) in this case. Defendant HRHH further argues there are

4

compelling reasons to seal the exhibit given that it is a confidential personnel record involving an

5

incident that occurred after Plaintiff was no longer employed by HRHH and is therefore unrelated

6

to this case. Finally, HRHH seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,592.00, which represents its

7

attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion.

8

Defendant Mancino requests that the Court seal exhibit six to Plaintiff’s response to

9

Defendant Mancino’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 99-7), which is the same document

10

at issue in Defendant HRHH’s motion. Although Defendant Mancino does not specifically

11

reference the compelling reasons standard, he argues that the exhibit should be sealed because it is

12

irrelevant and because Plaintiff attached it to his response as an attempt to “smear Defendant

13

Mancino’s reputation.” (Def. Mancino’s Mot. for Sanctions and Joinder in Def. HRHH’s Mot. for

14

Sanctions (ECF No. 106) at 2.) Defendant Mancino seeks sanctions in the amount of $710.00,

15

which represents his attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion.

16

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

17

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly

18

accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record “bears the burden of

19

overcoming this strong presumption.” Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to

20

seal the record “must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

21

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

22

public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal

23

quotation marks and citations omitted). Among the compelling reasons which may justify sealing a

24

record are “when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the

25

use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or

26

release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation omitted). However, avoiding a litigant’s

27

“embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

28

court to seal its records.” Id.
2

1

Here, the exhibit at issue appears to be irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims because it does not

2

relate to Plaintiff and involves an incident that occurred after Plaintiff was no longer employed by

3

HRHH. Viewing the exhibit in the context of Plaintiff’s responses to the motions for summary

4

judgment, the Court cannot discern a proper purpose for attaching the exhibit. Given these

5

concerns, the Court finds Defendants HRHH and Mancino have articulated compelling reasons that

6

justify sealing the exhibit. The Court therefore will grant Defendants HRHH and Mancino’s

7

motions to the extent they seek to seal the exhibit.

8

As for the request for sanctions against Plaintiff, the Court recognizes that the exhibit at

9

issue is marked as confidential subject to the protective order in this case. However, the protective

10

order is silent on a party’s obligations when a party files a document subject to the protective order

11

as an exhibit to a dispositive motion. Although Defendants HRHH and Mancino argue Plaintiff

12

should have preserved the confidentiality of the document at issue, they do not explain how

13

Plaintiff’s conduct with respect to using the exhibit at the dispositive motions stage of the litigation

14

violates the protective order, which is geared toward protecting particular documents during

15

discovery. Additionally, different interests are at stake in sealing documents produced during

16

discovery and documents attached to dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The

17

Court therefore will deny Defendants HRHH and Mancino’s motions to the extent they seek

18

sanctions.

19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant HRHH Gaming Senior Mezz LLC’s

20

Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary

21

Judgment, and Request for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Violation of Stipulated Protective Order

22

Governing Confidential Information (ECF Nos. 102, 104) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in

23

part. The motions are granted to the extent they seek to seal exhibit six (ECF No. 98-7) to Plaintiff

24

Leon Richardson’s response to Defendant HRHH’s motion for summary judgment. The motions

25

are DENIED to the extent they seek sanctions against Plaintiff.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bennie R. Mancino’s Motion for Leave to File

27

Under Seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder in

28

Defendant HRHH’s Similar Motion (ECF No. 105) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3

1

The motion is granted to the extent it seeks to seal exhibit six (ECF No. 99-7) to Plaintiff Leon

2

Richardson’s response to Defendant Mancino’s motion for summary judgment.

3
4
5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bennie R. Mancino’s Motion for Sanctions
and Joinder in Defendant HRHH’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 106) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must seal Plaintiff Leon Richardson’s
responses to the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 98 and 99) in their entirety.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by March 29, 2016, Plaintiff Leon Richardson must refile his

8

responses to the motions for summary judgment— with complete redaction of all text in exhibit six

9

in both of the responses— for the public record.

10
11

DATED: March 22, 2016

12
13
14

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4