Morgan & Morgan, P.A. v. Eglet et al

Filing 41

ORDER re 38 Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/7/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.,

Case No. 2:13-cv-02210-GMN-PAL

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ROBERT T. EGLET, et al.
Defendants.

10

Before the court is the parties= Stipulation for Protective Order (Dkt. #37), which the

11

court approved, with the exception of a portion of Paragraph 16, to facilitate discovery in this

12

case. This order also reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files

13

and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal

14

and must comply with the Ninth Circuit=s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of

15

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

16

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

17

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

18

requires the Clerk of the Court to maintain the official files for all cases filed on or after

19

November 7, 2005, in electronic form. The electronic record constitutes the official record of the

20

court. Attorneys must file documents under seal using the court=s electronic filing procedures.

21

See LR 10-5(b). That rule provides:

22
23
24
25
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, directly under the
case number: AFILED 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.
1

1

The court has approved the parties= blanket protective order to facilitate their discovery

2

exchanges. However, the parties have not shown, and court has not found, that any specific

3

documents are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by

4

affidavits or concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any

5

specific trade secret or other confidential information under Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would

6

cause an identifiable and significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption

7

of public access to judicial files and records and that parties seeking to maintain the

8

confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must show good cause exists to

9

overcome the presumption of public access. See Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to

10

maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling

11

reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. Id. at 1180.

12

DATED this 7th day of May, 2014.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2