Nevada West Petroleum, LLC v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al.,

Filing 55

ORDER Denying without prejudice the parties' 38 , 46 , and 48 Motions to Seal. The Clerk of the Court shall unseal Plaintiffs' Motions to Seal but not the exhibits. The parties' exhibits shall remain under seal until 9/30/2016. The designating (or parties) shall have until 9/30/2016 to review the documents and file either: (i) a memorandum of points and authorities showing why the documents should remain under seal or (ii) a notice indicating that the documents do not require sealing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD) Modified on 9/19/2016 to include ruling on 38 Motion (SLD).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

NEVADA WEST PETROLEUM, LLC, et al.,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-cv-01684-APG-PAL

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, et al.,

(Mots. to Seal – ECF Nos. 38, 46, 48)

Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF No. 38, 46, 48).

13

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

14

1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

15

The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain concurrently filed exhibits. The parties

16

request that the exhibits be sealed because they purportedly contain confidential information as

17

defined by the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 34) (“Protective Order”). However,

18

the Motions do not make a particularized showing to support sealing.

19

Although the court approved the Protective Order, LR 10-5 does not permit documents to

20

be filed under seal simply because the court approved a blanket protective order to facilitate the

21

parties’ discovery exchanges. Rather, a party who designates documents as confidential is

22

required to meet the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana v. City and County

23

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), to overcome the presumption of public access to

24

judicial files, records, motions, and any exhibits. See also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

25

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the

26

sealing of entire documents is improper when confidential information can be redacted while

27

leaving meaningful information available to the public. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

28

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661
1

1

F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent that a sealing order is permitted, it must be narrowly

2

tailored. See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501,

3

512 (1984). A sealing order should be limited to information that is “actually sensitive,” that is,

4

only the parts of the material necessary to protect the designating party. Id.

5

The court appreciates that the Motions were filed to comply with the parties’ obligation

6

to treat documents designated by opposing counsel as confidential, but a cursory statement that a

7

document is confidential does not make a particularized showing to support sealing. The court

8

will allow the exhibits to remain sealed temporarily so that the parties and their counsel may

9

confer about what, if any, portion should remain sealed. The designating party (or parties) will

10

be required to file within 14 days either: (i) an appropriate memorandum of points and

11

authorities making a particularized showing why the documents should remain under seal, or (ii)

12

a notice indicating that the documents do not require sealing. Pursuant to Kamakana and its

13

progeny, a supporting memorandum must set forth either good cause or compelling reasons to

14

support the request for sealing.

15

Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 46, 48) were

16

erroneously filed under seal when the motions themselves do not contain any confidential

17

information—only the attached exhibits present confidential information. If a motion to seal

18

itself contains confidential information, the moving party may file a redacted motion to seal on

19

the public docket and an unredacted motion under seal. However, this practice is disfavored as

20

litigants should attempt to meet their burden under Kamakana without specific references to

21

confidential information. For additional direction, the parties should review the order filed

22

concurrently herewith addressing sealed filings and the CM/ECF filing procedures available on

23

the court’s website, or contact the CM/ECF Helpdesk at [phone]. The court will direct

24

the Clerk of the Court to unseal the motions.

25

Accordingly,

26

IT IS ORDERED:

27

1. The parties’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 36, 46, 48) are DENIED without prejudice.

28
2

1
2

2. The Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 46, 48),
but not the exhibits.

3

3. The parties’ exhibits shall remain under seal until September 30, 2016.

4

4. The designating (or parties) shall have until September 30, 2016, to review the

5

documents and file either: (i) an appropriate memorandum of points and authorities

6

making a particularized showing why the documents should remain under seal, or (ii)

7

a notice indicating that the documents do not require sealing.

8
9
10

5. If the parties fail to timely comply with this Order, the Clerk of the Court will be
directed to unseal the documents to make them available on the public docket.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2016.

11
12
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3