Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC

Filing 473

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that #434 , #439 the parties' Motions to Seal are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL #435 -2 Exhibit 2. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL1

CUNG LE, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER

v.

10

(Mots. to Seal – ECF Nos. 434, 439)

ZUFFA, LLC, d/b/a UFC Ultimate Fighting
Championship,

11

Defendant.

12
13

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 434, 439). These

14

Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and

15

1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice.

16

The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain documents and exhibits referenced in the

17

filings related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory (ECF No. 433). See Sealed

18

Exhibits (ECF No. 435) (attaching Pls.’ Unredacted Mot. (ECF No. 435-1); Exhibit 2 (ECF

19

No. 435-2), Exhibit 7 (ECF No. 435-3), and Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 435-4)). Plaintiffs seek leave to

20

file the documents under seal based on their obligation pursuant to the Amended Protective Order

21

(ECF No. 2017) entered in this case governing confidentiality. Plaintiffs’ motion expresses no

22

opinion regarding the confidentiality of the documents. Defendant Zuffa, LLC’s motion provides

23

a particularized showing why the unredacted motion for issuance of letters rogatory along Exhibits

24

7 and 8 should remain under seal. Zuffa took no position on whether Exhibit 2, the Declaration of

25

Matt Hume, a Vice-President of Operations for Group One Holdings, may be properly filed under

26

seal.

27
28

1

Member Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK; 2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF; 2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF;
and 2:15-cv-01057-JCM-CWH.

1

1

Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s

2

directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006),

3

and its progeny, the court finds that the parties have met their burden of establishing good cause

4

for all but one of the documents to remain sealed. The parties narrowly tailored their sealing

5

requests to the extent possible by filing redacted versions of two of the documents containing

6

confidential information. See Pls.’ Redacted Mot. (ECF No. 433); Redacted Exhibit 8 (ECF

7

No. 439-2). However, no party or non-party offered a declaration in support of sealing Mr.

8

Hume’s declaration and a blanket protective order is not sufficient to permit the filing of

9

documents under seal.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS ORDERED:

12

1. The parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 434, 439) are GRANTED IN PART AND

13
14
15

DENIED IN PART.
2. Plaintiffs’ Unredacted Motion (ECF No. 435-1); Exhibit 7 (ECF No. 435-3), and
Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 435-4) shall remain under seal.

16

3. The Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 435-2).

17

Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.

18
19
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2