Pro-Tect Security Services, LLC v. Integrated Systems Improvement Services, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER. The Court DENIES without prejudice 22 the parties' second stipulation to file all briefings and exhibits related to Plaintiff's motion to disqualify under seal and stipulation to continue the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference. Further , as the motion itself is improperly filed entirely under seal, the Court DENIES without prejudice 23 Plaintiff's motion to disqualify. The Court STRIKES the filings at Docket Nos. 23 , 24 , 25 , and 26 for noncompliance with the Court's Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/5/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

TRADE SHOW SERVICES, LTD,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

v.

13

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT
SERVICES, INC., et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01685-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 22, 23)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ second stipulation to file all briefings and exhibits related

17

to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify under seal and to continue the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference. Docket

18

No. 22. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Docket No. 23. For the

19

reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ stipulation, and Plaintiff’s

20

motion to disqualify.

21

The parties’ stipulation to seal is defective in several respects. First, the stipulation to seal itself

22

was improperly filed under seal. A request to seal should be filed publicly, and the material for which

23

sealing is sought should be filed separately under seal pending resolution of the request to seal. See

24

Local Rule IA 10-5(a).

25

Second, the stipulation to seal does not sufficiently address the applicable standards. On

26

November 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to file all briefings and exhibits related to Plaintiff’s

27

motion to disqualify under seal and stipulation to continue the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference. Docket

28

No. 20. On November 16, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice the parties’ stipulation. Docket No.

1

21. The Court provided the parties with the requisite standards a motion to seal must comply with,

2

notably the standards provided in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu. See 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.

3

2006); see also Docket No. 20. The Court will not repeat the requisite standards or its analysis here but

4

will note that the parties fail to submit “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” as

5

to what information in each document requested to be sealed is confidential, privileged, or otherwise

6

and how that information meets the applicable standards. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447

7

F.3d at 1178 (emphasis added).

8

Third, the parties fail to state whether the documents they request to be sealed could be redacted

9

and, if so, which portions. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir.

10

2003); see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir.

11

2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”); Docket

12

No. 21.

13

Fourth, the parties request, for a second time, that the motion to seal apply to pleadings that have

14

not yet been filed (Defendant’s response and exhibits to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify and Plaintiff’s

15

reply and exhibits). Docket No. 22 at 2; see also Docket No. 21 at 3. The Court previously addressed

16

this issue and will not repeat its analysis here. Docket No. 21 at 3.

17

In light of the above, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ second stipulation to file

18

all briefings and exhibits related to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify under seal and stipulation to continue

19

the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference. Docket No. 22. Further, as the motion itself is improperly filed

20

entirely under seal, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Docket No.

21

23. The Court STRIKES the filings at Docket Nos. 23, 24, 25, and 26 for noncompliance with the

22

Court’s Local Rules.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: December 5, 2017

25
26

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2