Hunt v. Zuffa, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 2 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MARK HUNT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ZUFFA, LLC, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 2), filed on January 10,
2017. Defendants did not file a response.

12

Plaintiff requests leave to file an appendix of documents (ECF No. 2-1) under seal, based on

13

a confidentiality agreement between the parties in this case. Plaintiff argues that filing the appendix

14

under seal would allow him to proceed with this action while not violating the confidentiality

15

agreement.

16

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

17

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly

18

accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record “bears the burden of

19

overcoming this strong presumption.” Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to

20

seal the record “must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

21

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public

22

interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal quotation

23

marks and citations omitted). However, the public’s right to access court records does not apply

24

with equal force to non-dispositive materials, such as discovery documents. Id. A court may seal

25

such documents based on a particularized showing of good cause. Id.

26

Here, the Court finds the parties’ confidentiality agreement constitutes a particularized

27

showing of good cause to seal the appendix for use during discovery and other non-dispositive

28

1

1

purposes in this case. The Court notes that it does not here find compelling reasons to seal the

2

appendix for dispositive purposes should it be re-submitted later on during the course of litigation.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

4
5

DATED: February 9, 2017.

6
7

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2