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 Ma rch 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)

Download PDF
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

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?