Marquis Aurbach Coffing v. Dorfman et al
Filing
49
ORDER that 48 Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's motion to seal exhibits 2-11 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to seal exhibits 13 and 14 and to redact certain portions of its motion to compel is GRANTED. No later than February 5, 2016, Plaintiff shall file its motion to compel on the public docket. It may seal exhibits 13 and 14 and redact lines 1-6 on page 6. Plaintiff's prior filing shall remain under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/1/16. (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
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING, P.C.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
TERRY DORFMAN, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:15-cv-00701-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 48)
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to file documents under seal that are
17
attached to its motion to compel and to redact portions of its motion to compel. Docket No. 48.
18
Plaintiff seeks to file certain documents under seal because they were designated as confidential by non-
19
parties Melaleuca, Inc., and Melaleuca of Canada, Inc. (“Melaleuca”) pursuant to the protective order
20
governing discovery in another case. Id. at 2. Attached to Plaintiff’s motion is a declaration, in which
21
Melaleuca’s counsel submits that the documents contain Melaleuca’s proprietary marketing information.
22
Docket No. 48-3 at 4. That declaration only addressees two of the twelve subject documents: those
23
labeled Bates Numbers MEL-MAC 000274 and MEL-MAC 001655, which are attached to Plaintiff’s
24
motion to compel as exhibits 13 and 14. Docket No. 48-3 at 3 (providing that “it is my understanding
25
that these two documents are the only confidential Business Report Summaries MAC is presently
26
seeking to file”). Melaleuca’s counsel argues that the disclosure of these two documents to the public,
27
other litigants, or Melaleuca’s competitors would be unduly prejudicial. Id.
28
Parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to a motion
1
2
“ a motion to compel must make a particularized showing of good cause. See Kamakana v. City and
3
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
4
Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption
5
of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
6
(9th Cir. 2006). Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored. Where documents may be redacted
7
while leaving meaningful information available to the public, the Court will allow only redaction of
8
filed documents rather than outright sealing of the documents in their entirety. See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d
9
at 1137.
10
The Court has reviewed the documents and Melaleuca’s declaration and finds that good cause
11
exists to seal the two documents addressed in that declaration. With respect to the remaining
12
documents, the Court finds Melaleuca and Plaintiff have failed to make the requisite showing of good
13
cause. The motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Aevoe Corp. v. AE
14
Tech Co., 2014 WL 6065812, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2014) (granting motion to seal confidential and
15
proprietary business information under more demanding compelling interest).
16
Accordingly, for good cause shown,
17
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to seal exhibits 2-11 is DENIED.
18
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to seal exhibits 13 and 14 and to redact certain portions of its motion
to compel is GRANTED.
19
20
3.
No later than February 5, 2016, Plaintiff shall file its motion to compel on the public
docket. It may seal exhibits 13 and 14 and redact lines 1-6 on page 6.
21
22
4.
Plaintiff’s prior filing shall remain under seal.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
DATED: February 1, 2016
25
26
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
2
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?