Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 79

ORDER Granting 67 Motion to Substitute and 68 Motion to Seal. Defendant is ORDERED to file on the public docket a newly redacted version of Exhibit 2 with redactions only on pages 128 and 147 within 7 days of the issuance of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/11/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

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 motion to substitute. Docket No. 67. Defendant

17

seeks to substitute a revised Exhibit 2 to its motion to quash subpoena and for protective order. To

18

date, no response has been filed opposing the motion. See Docket. Thus, the motion may be granted

19

as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). The Court has also reviewed the motion and finds good cause

20

to grant it. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to substitute (Docket No. 67) is hereby GRANTED.

21

Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to file under seal. Docket No. 68.

22

Defendant seeks to file the revised Exhibit 2 to its motion to quash subpoena and for protective order

23

with redactions. On May 4, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring supplemental briefing to

24

support the sealing request. Docket No. 74. On May 7, 2015, Defendant filed a supplemental brief,

25

stating that it agreed to withdraw its proposed redactions to page 135 of the deposition of Gary

26

Harwood. Docket No. 77, at 1.

27

...

28

...

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 67, 68)

1

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

2

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

3

nondispositive motions must make a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana v.

4

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

5

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Assoc., 605

6

F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). A party seeking to file documents under seal bears the burden of

7

overcoming that presumption. See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.

8

Defendant represents that it is seeking “to protect the confidential business information of

9

itself and third parties to this litigation, including certain of these entities’ business practices,

10

collection practices, regulatory compliance, the tools and equipment these entities use, and their

11

proprietary business procedures.” Docket No. 68, at 4. Specifically, Defendant argues that the

12

redactions on pages 128 and 147 of the deposition transcript concern Defendant’s business practices

13

that, “if generally known, cardholders could use against Credit One to avoid paying debts.” Id., at

14

3. Thus, Defendant argues that the redactions on pages 128 and 147 of the deposition of Gary

15

Harwood should be kept under seal. The Court finds that good cause exist to seal the redactions on

16

pages 128 and 147 of the deposition of Gary Harwood that outweigh the public’s right to access.

17

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to file under seal (Docket No. 68) is hereby GRANTED.

18

Defendant is ORDERED to file on the public docket a newly redacted version of Exhibit 2 with

19

redactions only on pages 128 and 147 within 7 days of the issuance of this order.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: May 11, 2015

22
23
24
25

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
-2-