Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al

Filing 253

ORDER that #248 Motion to Seal and #251 Motion to Seal are GRANTED. The Clerk shall SEAL #246 Plaintiffs' Response and [246-2] Exhibit A. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a redacted version the above documents no later than March 5, 2018, consistent with the redactions requested in Defendants' motion, as wellas any other redactions necessary to comply with the stipulated protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/28/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RUSSELL J. SHAH, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-CWH

ORDER

10

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 248), filed on February 23,

11

2018, and Defendants’ emergency motion to seal (ECF No. 251), filed on February 27, 2018. Both

12

parties move to seal Plaintiffs’ response brief (ECF No. 246) filed in opposition to a pending motion

13

to quash.

14

Motions to seal are generally disfavored, in deference to the public’s “general right to inspect

15

and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v.

16

City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns,

17

Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)). Except for a narrow range of documents in criminal matters that have

18

traditionally been kept secret, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” for court records. Id.

19

The party which seeks to seal a court record bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Id.

20

When determining whether a record should be sealed, the court must attempt to balance the

21

competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal the record. Id. at 1179. When

22

attempting to balance these competing interests, the potential embarrassment, incrimination, or

23

exposure to further litigation do not by themselves constitute compelling reasons. Id. A court may

24

seal a record only upon a finding of “compelling reasons,” in the case of exhibits attached to

25

dispositive motions, or “good cause” for discovery materials. Id. at 1178-1179.

26

Here, the parties represent that Plaintiffs’ response brief to Defendant’s motion to quash

27

contains material deemed confidential pursuant to the stipulated protective order in this case (ECF

28

NO. 39). The Court therefore finds good cause to grant the motions to seal.
1

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 248), and

2

Defendants’ emergency motion to seal (ECF No. 251) are GRANTED. The Clerk shall SEAL

3

Plaintiffs’ response (ECF No. 246) and Exhibit A (ECF No. 246-2).

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a redacted version the above documents

5

no later than March 5, 2018, consistent with the redactions requested in Defendants’ motion, as well

6

as any other redactions necessary to comply with the stipulated protective order.

7

DATED: February 28, 2018

8
9

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2