Garcia v. Service Employees International Union et al

Filing 186

ORDER re 173 Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in limited part. In particular, the Clerk's Office shall maintain under seal the unredacted exhibit at Docket No. 173 -4. The Clerk's Office shall unseal the declarat ion at Docket No. 173 -10. Lastly the Clerk's Office shall strike the remaining exhibits at issue: Docket Nos. 173 -1, 173 -2, 173 -3, 173 -5, 173 -6, 173 -7, 173 -8, and 173 -9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/1/2018. (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

[Docket No. 173]
SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 173. The Court provided

17 all parties with the opportunity to file a supplement providing a basis for sealing or redacting any
18 of the subject documents and ordered that any such supplement be filed by September 28, 2018.
19 See Docket No. 183.1 Defendants filed such a supplement. Docket No. 185.
20

Docket No. 173-4 is an email that is bates-stamped SEIU 13239. Defendants have now

21 filed two proposed redactions to that exhibit. See Docket No. 185-1. The first redaction seeks to
22 obscure the name of another local for which the email provides confidential discussion of a
23 trusteeship. See Docket No. 185 at 7. The second redaction seeks to obscure the name of an SEIU
24 affiliate and another labor union about which there were sensitive confidential communications.
25 See id. The Court may allow those redactions upon a particularized showing of good cause.
26
27

1

In violation of this order, Plaintiffs did not file a proof of service evidencing that they had
provided all of the documents at issue to Defendants. The Court expects strict compliance with its
28 orders in the future.
1

1 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). For good cause
2 shown, the motion to seal is GRANTED with respect to this particular exhibit in light of the
3 redactions proposed.
4

Docket No. 173-10 is a declaration filed in support of the motion to seal. It does not appear

5 that Defendants seek to seal that declaration. See Docket No. 185. Accordingly, that declaration
6 shall be UNSEALED at this time.
7

The remaining exhibits at issue do not appear to have been submitted in relation to the

8 underlying reply brief to the motion to compel. See Docket No. 185 at 2. Instead, those exhibits
9 appear to have been filed in relation to ancillary issues that were raised in the motion to seal, but
10 were not pertinent to the standards governing sealing. Cf. Docket No. 183 at 1-2 (striking the
11 motion to seal itself as addressing issues not pertinent to the sealing standards). Because those
12 exhibits were apparently not filed in support of the underlying reply brief to the motion to compel
13 and their relevance to the sealing standards is not clear, the Court will STRIKE those exhibits.
14

Accordingly, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED in limited part. In particular, the

15 Clerk’s Office shall maintain under seal the unredacted exhibit at Docket No. 173-4. The Clerk’s
16 Office shall unseal the declaration at Docket No. 173-10. Lastly the Clerk’s Office shall strike the
17 remaining exhibits at issue: Docket Nos. 173-1, 173-2, 173-3, 173-5, 173-6, 173-7, 173-8, and
18 173-9.
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: October 1, 2018
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2