Garcia v. Service Employees International Union et al

Filing 164

ORDER re 135 , 136 , 148 Motions to Seal. IT IS SO ORDERED that the Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to unseal the filings at Docket Nos. 135 , 135 -1, and 135 -2. The Court DEFERS ruling on the other aspects of the motions to seal pending the filing of the supplement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

RAYMOND GARCIA, et al.,

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01340-APG-NJK

Plaintiff(s),
12

Order

v.
13
14
15
16

[Docket Nos. 135, 136, 148]
SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Pending before the Court are three motions to seal related to discovery motion practice.

17 Docket Nos. 135, 136, 148.
18

At issue are hundreds of pages of documents produced by Defendants in this case.

19 Defendants filed declarations that assert at times that “portions” of these documents are sealable.
20 See, e.g., Docket No. 135-1 at ¶ 9 (“portions of the memorandum designated ‘Confidential’ address
21 sensitive internal organizing strategy”). Any request to seal documents must be “narrowly
22 tailored” to remove from the public sphere only the material that warrants secrecy. E.g., Ervine v.
23 Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court
24 of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1986)). As a corollary, to the extent any confidential information can be
25 easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order
26 that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents.

Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

27 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
28 Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the
1

1 possibility of redacting the sensitive material”). Absent from Defendants’ filings is an explanation
2 why redaction, rather than wholesale sealing of these exhibits, is not appropriate. The Court hereby
3 ORDERS Defendants to file copies of these exhibits with proposed redactions targeted at the
4 particular confidential information within these documents.

Defendants shall also file a

5 supplement explaining the basis for allowing secrecy as to each redaction proposed and explaining
6 why redaction is not feasible for any documents for which wholesale sealing is sought. This
7 supplement must be complete in itself and must provide a basis for each sealing/redaction request
8 being made.1 Defendants shall comply with this order by September 13, 2018.
9

With respect to Docket Nos. 135 and 135-1, the Court provided the parties with an opportunity

10 to explain why such documents should be sealed, Docket No. 137 at 2, and no filing was made doing
11 so. Docket No. 135-2 is similarly not sealable. That exhibit consists of an email exchange between
12 counsel regarding the stipulated protective order entered in this case and the procedures for filing
13 documents under seal. As such the Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to unseal the filings at Docket
14 Nos. 135, 135-1, and 135-2. The Court DEFERS ruling on the other aspects of the motions to seal
15 pending the filing of the supplement identified above.2
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: September 6, 2018
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Defendants at times purport to incorporate by reference arguments made elsewhere. See
Docket No. 148-1 at ¶ 3. The Court declines to proceed in that fashion. The page limitations for
26 motions shall not apply to this filing, though Defendants should be as concise as the subject matter
permits.
27
2
As such, for the time-being, the following exhibits shall remain sealed: Docket Nos. 13428 17, 135-3, 135-4, 135-5, 135-6, 149.
2