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

Filing 46

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 45 Motion to Seal. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a new and complete version of the exhibits accompanying its motion to disqualify with the above specifications, no later than 3/9/2018. The Court STRIKES the filings at Docket Nos. 29 , 30 , 42 , 43 , and 44 . See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/5/2018. (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(s),
12
vs.
13
14

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

15

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01685-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 45)

16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Docket No. 45. Plaintiff submits that
17
certain portions of the exhibits submitted in support of its motion to disqualify Defendant’s counsel
18
should be sealed or, in the alternative, redacted. Id.; see also Docket Nos. 42, 43, 44 (motion to
19
disqualify and accompanying exhibits). Plaintiff’s exhibits to its motion to disqualify include: the names
20
of trusts established by Plaintiff’s owner (Leslie Bruno), the trusts’ beneficiaries, trustees, and successor
21
trustees, the trustees’ compensation, the trusts’ distribution, Ms. Bruno’s social security number, home
22
address, cell phone number, and home telephone number, the name of Ms. Bruno’s adult son, the
23
addresses for Ms. Bruno’s investment properties, Ms. Bruno’s health directives and her health care
24
agent’s contact information, membership information for one of Ms. Bruno’s corporate entities, and
25
information regarding the scope of legal services provided by Defendant’s counsel to Ms. Bruno and
26
details regarding Ms. Bruno’s various estate planning vehicles. Docket No. 45 at 7-24 (internal citations
27
omitted).
28

1

Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must

2

meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana v. City &

3

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Those compelling reasons must outweigh

4

the competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the

5

judicial process. Id. at 1178-79. In this case, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support

6

some of the requested redactions. Accordingly, the motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED

7

in part. Docket No. 45.

8

Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29 may remain as redacted. See

9

generally Docket Nos. 29, 30. Exhibits 24 and 25 shall be maintained under seal. Docket No. 44 at 80-

10

90.

11

As to Ms. Bruno’s home address in exhibit 1, it appears that the redacted version is worded

12

differently than the un-redacted version and may refer to the actual address. Docket No. 29 at 7.

13

However, the un-redacted version does not contain Ms. Bruno’s home address, only the county in which

14

her home is located. Docket No. 43 at 7. In addition to the standard established by Local Rule IC 6-

15

1(a)(5), the Court does not find compelling reasons to support redaction of Ms. Bruno’s home county.

16

As to exhibit 14, Plaintiff may redact the name of the owner of Pro-Tect Security Services, LLC,

17

but may not maintain the entirety of the exhibit under seal. Docket No. 30 at 40. As to exhibit 15,

18

Plaintiff may redact the name(s) of Pro-Tect Security Services, LLC’s officer(s) and manager(s) but may

19

not maintain the entirety of the exhibit under seal. Id. at 42, 43, 45-49. As to exhibit 18, Plaintiff may

20

redact the actual health care directive provided in the first paragraph but may not maintain the entirety

21

of the exhibit under seal. Id. at 61.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
2

1

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a new and complete version the exhibits accompanying its

2

motion to disqualify with the above specifications, no later than March 9, 2018. Only exhibits 24 and

3

25 shall be filed under seal. A courtesy copy of the new filing is not necessary. The Court STRIKES

4

the filings at Docket Nos. 29, 30, 42, 43, and 44.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: March 5, 2018

7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3