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)

Download PDF
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

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?