Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 185

ORDER that 184 Supplemental Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Consistent with the foregoing analysis, a redacted version of Exhibit A to the Huntington Declaration shall be filed on the public docket, no later than April 22, 2016. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to UNSEAL the document at Docket No. 174 and maintain the document at Docket No. 176 under SEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
WILLIAM BRIDGE,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents

17

Under Seal. Docket No. 184. The Court previously denied Defendant’s motion because it failed

18

to comply with the Court’s sealing procedures and address controlling authorities. Docket No. 180.

19

Defendant has now complied, filing a supplement to its motion to seal, which the Court construes

20

as a Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents under Seal. Docket No. 184.

21

I.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 184)

STANDARD

22

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

23

records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Parties

24

seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must make

25

a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz v. State

26

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003)).

27

//

28

//

1

Defendant seeks leave to file under seal an unredacted version of its Response to Plaintiff’s

2

Motion for Class Certification as well various exhibits to declarations in support of that filing.

3

Docket No. 184 at 2-3; see also Docket Nos. 174, 175, 176. Accordingly, for each document, a

4

particularized showing of good cause is required to overcome the presumption of public access to

5

judicial files and records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.

6

II.

DISCUSSION

7

A. Huntington Declaration Exhibit A

8

This document is Plaintiff’s “Class Action Retainer Agreement[.]” Docket No. 184 at 16.

9

Plaintiff has designated it confidential under the Court’s blanket protective order at Docket No. 64.

10

Id. at 15. Pursuant to the procedures outlined at Docket No. 65, Plaintiff has provided a declaration

11

in support of the motion to seal for Defendant to file. Id. at 15-17.

12

Plaintiff “does not object to having a redacted verison of the [document] in the public record

13

that reveals paragraph 2.A. through 2.D., which is the portion of the document that [Defendant]

14

actually cites.” Id. at 16-17. Plaintiff contends the unsealing of the remainder of the retainer would

15

reveal his counsel’s proprietary business practices and expose him to competitive disadvantage. Id.

16

at 16.

17

Here, Plaintiff’s proprietary business information can be easily redacted while leaving all

18

meaningful information available to the public. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. Accordingly, a redacted

19

version of Exhibit A to the Huntington Declaration shall be filed on the public docket, no later than

20

April 22, 2016. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)

21

(holding that proprietary contract terms constituted a trade secret under Kamakana).

22

B. Vanderbeek Declaration Exhibits A-C

23

These documents are lists of information relating to non-party cardholders, who are

24

“potentially in collections.” Docket No. 184 at 2. They contain these cardholder’s phone numbers,

25

Exhibit A, debt-collection call information, Exhibit B, and the result of various debt collection calls,

26

Exhibit C. Id. at 5.

27
28

Where filings contain private personal information, good cause for secrecy exists. Minshew
-2-

1

v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1074 (D. Nev. 2012). Further, where filings might become a

2

vehicle for the release of trade secrets, sealing of records is justified. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

3

Accordingly, because these records contain non-parties’ financial information and reveal

4

Defendant’s proprietary collection methods, good cause exists to seal these records.

5

C. Redactions to Response

6

Defendant, additionally, requests leave to file a redacted version of its Response to Plaintiff’s

7

Motion for Class Certification on the public docket and unredacted version under seal. Docket No.

8

184 at 3. These redactions relate to Plaintiff counsel’s fee information. Because Plaintiff does not

9

object to this information being filed on the public docket, Defendant’s motion to seal its Response

10

is DENIED. Docket No. 184 at 16-17 (disclaiming any desire to seal information that Defendant

11

cites).

12

D. Conclusion

13

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

14

1.

15
16

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Docket No. 184, is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.

2.

Consistent with the foregoing analysis, a redacted version of Exhibit A to the

17

Huntington Declaration shall be filed on the public docket, no later than April 22,

18

2016.

19
20
21

3.

The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to UNSEAL the document at Docket No. 174 and
maintain the document at Docket No. 176 under SEAL.

DATED: April 18, 2016

22
23

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

-3-