Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL1
CUNG LE, et al.,
(Mots. to Seal – ECF Nos. 434, 439)
ZUFFA, LLC, d/b/a UFC Ultimate Fighting
This matter is before the court on the parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 434, 439). These
Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and
1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice.
The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain documents and exhibits referenced in the
filings related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory (ECF No. 433). See Sealed
Exhibits (ECF No. 435) (attaching Pls.’ Unredacted Mot. (ECF No. 435-1); Exhibit 2 (ECF
No. 435-2), Exhibit 7 (ECF No. 435-3), and Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 435-4)). Plaintiffs seek leave to
file the documents under seal based on their obligation pursuant to the Amended Protective Order
(ECF No. 2017) entered in this case governing confidentiality. Plaintiffs’ motion expresses no
opinion regarding the confidentiality of the documents. Defendant Zuffa, LLC’s motion provides
a particularized showing why the unredacted motion for issuance of letters rogatory along Exhibits
7 and 8 should remain under seal. Zuffa took no position on whether Exhibit 2, the Declaration of
Matt Hume, a Vice-President of Operations for Group One Holdings, may be properly filed under
Member Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK; 2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF; 2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF;
Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s
directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006),
and its progeny, the court finds that the parties have met their burden of establishing good cause
for all but one of the documents to remain sealed. The parties narrowly tailored their sealing
requests to the extent possible by filing redacted versions of two of the documents containing
confidential information. See Pls.’ Redacted Mot. (ECF No. 433); Redacted Exhibit 8 (ECF
No. 439-2). However, no party or non-party offered a declaration in support of sealing Mr.
Hume’s declaration and a blanket protective order is not sufficient to permit the filing of
documents under seal.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 434, 439) are GRANTED IN PART AND
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.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 435-2).
Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.
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?