Garcia v. Service Employees International Union et al

Filing 250

AMENDED ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined, with respect to any documents filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/15/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RAYMOND GARCIA, et al., ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) ) SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ) UNION, et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:17-cv-01340-APG-NJK AMENDED ORDER 16 The Court has entered a Protective Order to facilitate discovery in this case. This order reminds 17 counsel that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file 18 a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s 19 directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under seal 21 using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the Court 22 under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those documents 23 under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a). 24 The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But there 25 has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret or 26 confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or concrete 27 examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other 28 confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and 1 significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files 2 and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to 3 nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. See 4 Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 5 dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public 6 access. Id. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the applicable standard and explain why that 7 standard has been met. The fact that a court has entered a blanket protective order and that a party has 8 designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, 9 establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 10 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 11 Cir. 1992). 12 A party shall file under seal any documents designated as confidential by the opposing party (or 13 any non-party) and shall contemporaneously file a motion to seal those documents. Within seven days 14 of the filing of such a motion to seal, the designator shall file either: (1) a declaration establishing 15 sufficient justification for keeping each document at issue sealed or allowing partial redaction, or (2) a 16 notice of consent to unsealing. If neither filing is made by the designator, the Court may order the 17 document(s) unsealed without further notice. 18 IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the 19 Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect 20 to any documents filed under seal. 21 DATED: January 15, 2019 22 23 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?