Banerjee et al v. Continental Incorporated, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 22 Motion to File Under Seal. Defendants have until 7/14/2017 to file a motion to seal Plaintiffs' Opposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 ADRISH BANERJEE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CONTINENTAL INCORPORATED, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:17-cv-00466-APG-GWF ORDER 12 13 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 22), filed on June 27, 2017. Plaintiffs request leave to file its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under seal 16 because it contains reference to testimony in a related matter that is subject to a protective order. 17 Plaintiffs filed a redacted version of their Opposition on June 27, 2017. ECF No. 18. Although 18 Plaintiffs do not agree with Defendants’ assertion that portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition are subject to 19 a protective order, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Seal out of an abundance of caution. The Ninth 20 Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial files and records in 21 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). There, the court 22 recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials produced during 23 discovery and materials attached to dispositive motions. The Kamakana court held that a “good 24 cause” showing is sufficient to seal documents produced during discovery. Id. at 1180. However, 25 the Kamakana decision also held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is needed to support the 26 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. A showing of “good cause” does not, without 27 more, satisfy the “compelling reasons” test required to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 28 dispositive motions. Id. 1 Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interests 2 in disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private spite, 3 permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179 4 (internal quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 5 litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 6 compel the court to seal its records.” Id., citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance 7 Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to dispositive 8 motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continuing 9 secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of public access by 10 outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181 (internal citations 11 and quotations omitted). 12 Plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient compelling reasons to justify sealing its Opposition to 13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The designation of documents or information as confidential for 14 discovery purposes does not automatically result in a finding that such information should be sealed 15 under Kamakana’s higher compelling reasons standard. Krause v. Nevada Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 16 3776416, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 2013). The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiffs’ request to file its 17 Opposition under seal without prejudice to Defendants filing a motion to seal. Accordingly, 18 19 20 21 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 22) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have until July 14, 2017 to file a motion to seal Plaintiffs' Opposition. DATED this 6th day of July, 2017. 23 24 25 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 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?