Villalta v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 23

ORDER Granting Defendants' 20 Motion to for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

VICTOR VILLALTA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01714-JAD-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to for Leave to File Exhibits Under
Seal (ECF No. 20), filed on June 26, 2017.
Defendants request leave to file Exhibits B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, R, and X attached to

16

Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s (“LVMPD”) motions for summary

17

judgment (ECF No. 19) under seal. The Ninth Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption

18

of public access to judicial files and records in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

19

1172 (9th Cir. 2006). There, the court recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving

20

the secrecy of materials produced during discovery and materials attached to dispositive motions.

21

The Kamakana court held that a “good cause” showing is sufficient to seal documents produced

22

during discovery. Id. at 1180. However, the Kamakana decision also held that a showing of

23

“compelling reasons” is needed to support the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions.

24

A showing of “good cause” does not, without more, satisfy the “compelling reasons” test required to

25

maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. Id.

26

Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interests

27

in disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private

28

spite, permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179

1

(internal quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to

2

a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

3

compel the court to seal its records.” Id., citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance

4

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to

5

dispositive motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring

6

continuing secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of public access

7

by outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181 (internal

8

citations and quotations omitted).

9

On balance, here, the interest in maintaining the privacy of non-party victims and documents

10

that contain sensitive and private information confidential outweighs the need for the public’s

11

access to information. The Court, therefore, grants Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits B, C, E, F,

12

G, H, I, J, K, R, and X attached to its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,

13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to for Leave to File Exhibits Under
Seal (ECF No. 20) is granted.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2017.

16
17
18

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2