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)

Download PDF
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

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?