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

Filing 41

ORDER re 28 Motion to Disqualify. No later than 2/23/2018, Plaintiff shall file its unredacted motion to disqualify and accompanying exhibits under seal, along with a separate motion to seal that addresses the relevant standards for each requested redaction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/22/2018. (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,

12

v.

13

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

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01685-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 28)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Docket No. 28. Prior to filing this

17

motion, the parties filed two stipulations to file all briefings and exhibits related to Plaintiff’s motion

18

to disqualify under seal. Docket Nos. 20, 22.

19

In denying the parties’ stipulations, the Court noted that the parties failed to address the

20

applicable standards for sealing. See Docket Nos. 21, 27. The Court provided the parties with the

21

requisite standards a motion to seal must comply with, notably the standards provided in Kamakana v.

22

City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Id. Further, the Court found that the parties

23

failed “to state whether the documents they request to be sealed could be redacted and, if so, which

24

portions.” Docket No. 27 at 2. See also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

Finally, the Court reminded the parties that, under the Court’s local rules, a party must file the

2

documents for which it requests sealing under seal along with a separate motion to seal. Docket No. 27

3

at 1; LR IA 10-5(a).

4

Rather than complying with the caselaw of the Ninth Circuit, the Court’s two prior orders, and

5

the Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiff filed its motion to disqualify, and accompanying exhibits, with

6

redactions for which it did not file a separate motion to seal addressing the applicable standards for each

7

redaction. See Docket Nos. 28, 29, 30. Further, Plaintiff failed to file its unredacted motion and exhibits

8

under seal. See Docket.

9

No later than February 23, 2018, Plaintiff shall file its unredacted motion to disqualify and

10

accompanying exhibits under seal, along with a separate motion to seal that addresses the relevant

11

standards for each requested redaction. Failure to comply with this order will result in an order to show

12

cause why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with three

13

Court orders.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: February 22, 2018.

16
17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2