Geico Indemnity Company v. Goldstein
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with LR 10-5(b) and the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), with respect to filing documents under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00340-APG-PAL
Before the court is the parties’ Stipulation and Protective Order (Dkt. #36), which the
court approved to facilitate discovery in this case. This order also reminds counsel that there is a
presumption of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential
document under seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit s
directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).
Special Order 109 requires the Clerk of the Court to maintain the official files for all
cases filed on or after November 7, 2005, in electronic form. The electronic record constitutes
the official record of the court. Attorneys must file documents under seal using the court’s
electronic filing procedures. See LR 10-5(b). That rule provides:
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: “FILED 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.
The court has approved the parties’ blanket protective order to facilitate their discovery
exchanges. However, the parties have not shown, and court has not found, that any specific
documents are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by
affidavits or concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any
specific trade secret or other confidential information under Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would
cause an identifiable and significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption
of public access to judicial files and records and that parties seeking to maintain the
confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must show good cause exists to
overcome the presumption of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking
to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling
reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. Id. at 1180.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with LR 10-5(b) and the Ninth Circuit’s
opinion in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), with
respect to filing documents under seal.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2015.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?