Ringelberg v. Vanguard Integrity Professionals -Nevada, Inc. et al

Filing 150

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Steven Ringelberg shall have until 5/31/18 to file the Motion for StatusConference 144 and exhibit "C" unsealed on the public docket and SERVE both the unsealed and sealed version of motion and its 9; exhibits on the defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall have until 6/14/18, to file a memorandum of points and authorities supporting any request to seal Exhibits A, B, D, & E. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/30/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

STEVEN RINGELBERG,

8
v.

9

11

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
(Mot. to Unseal – ECF No. 145)

Defendants.

12

14

Plaintiff,

VANGUARD INTEGRITY
PROFESSIONALS – NEVADA, INC., et al.,

10

13

Case No. 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Steven Ringelberg’s Motion to Unseal the
Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of his request for a Status Conference to Address
Outstanding Issues. (ECF No. 145) filed May 11, 2018. This Motion is referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice. No response
to the motion was filed and the time for filing a response has now run.
The Motion asks the court to unseal certain exhibits referenced in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Status Conference (ECF No. 144).1 However, the entire Motion for Status Conference and all five
Exhibits (A, B, C, D, and E) were filed under seal on May 11, 2018. The Motion does not address
the sealing status of the Motion for Status Conference and Exhibit C. Plaintiff states that the
subject exhibits contain documents that Defendants Vanguard Integrity Professionals-Nevada, Inc.
and/or Vanguard Integrity Professionals, Inc. marked “CONFIDENTIAL” prior to production to
Plaintiff. He asserts that none of the documents meet the criteria for filing under seal pursuant to
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and the court’s
1

It is unclear which documents Plaintiff seeks to unseal. On the first page of the Unsealing Motion,
Plaintiff asks the court to unseal “Exhibits A, B, D, and E.” However, on the second page, he claims that
“Exhibits A, B, C and D” do not meet the criteria for filing under seal. Exhibit C consists of two deposition
subpoenas by Plaintiff, which are not marked confidential. Thus, the court will construe the Unsealing
Motion as a request to unseal Exhibits A, B, D, and E unless and until Plaintiff indicates otherwise.

1

1

Protective Order (ECF No. 85). He therefore asks the court to unseal the exhibits. However,

2

because the Motion and its attachments were filed under seal the Clerk of Court did not serve

3

notice electronically via the court’s CM/ECF system. The certificate of service attached to the

4

motion certifies that attorney Norr electronically filed the Motion with the Clerk of Court using

5

the CM/ECF system on May 11, 2018 and that the document is being served on counsel for

6

Defendants “in the manner specified either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing

7

generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are

8

not authorized to receive Notices of Electronic Filing electronically.” Thus the motion has

9

apparently not been served on opposing counsel.

10

As the party(ies) who designated the documents confidential, Defendants are required to

11

meet the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana to overcome the presumption of

12

public access to judicial files, records, motions, and any exhibits. See also Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

13

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that the standards courts apply to

14

sealing requests turn on the relevance of the documents to the substantive merits of a case—not on

15

the relief sought). Under Kamakana and its progeny, a party must make a particularized showing

16

to overcome the presumption of public accessibility. The mere fact that one party designated

17

information as confidential under a protective order does not satisfy this standard. Blanket

18

protective orders are designed to facilitate discovery exchanges; they do not provide a finding that

19

any specific documents are secret or confidential to overcome the presumption of public access.

20

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (addressing the “the hazard of stipulated protective orders,” and

21

noting they often “purport to put the entire litigation under lock and key without regard to the

22

actual requirements of Rule 26(c)”). Additionally, only those portions of the motion that contain

23

specific reference to confidential documents or information, and the exhibits that contain such

24

confidential information, may be filed under seal. See In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of

25

Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

26

1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). The remainder of the motion, and other exhibits that do not contain

27

confidential information, must be filed as publicly-accessible documents. See LR IA 10-5(b)

28

(“The court may direct the unsealing of papers filed under seal, with or without redactions, after
2

1

notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard.”).

2

The court will order the plaintiff to serve the motion and its exhibits on opposing counsel,

3

and file the Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 144) and Exhibit C as a separate document

4

on the public record. The court will allow Exhibits A, B, D &E which are stamped “Confidential”

5

to remain temporarily sealed to give the defendants an opportunity to file an appropriate

6

memorandum of points and authorities on or before June 14, 2018, if they believe they can make

7

a particularized showing why the documents should remain under seal. Pursuant to Kamakana

8

and its progeny, any memorandum of points and authorities must set forth either good cause or

9

compelling reasons to support the sealing request.

10

In addition to Kamakana, the parties are required to follow the proper CM/ECF procedures

11

for any requests to seal judicial records. See, e.g., LR IA 10-5; LR IC 1-1. When a motion,

12

declaration, and/or exhibits contains both confidential and non-confidential information, a party

13

must not combine the mixed information into one filing. To streamline the process of sealing or

14

unsealing documents as may be necessary, confidential information must be filed separately from

15

the rest of the motion and/or exhibits under seal (i.e., “Sealed Exhibit(s)”), even if the

16

confidentiality designation is disputed.

17

The court’s review of any sealing or unsealing request in unnecessarily complicated by the

18

parties’ failure to follow Ninth Circuit case law, the Local Rules of Practice, and the proper

19

CM/ECF filing procedures. Counsel are responsible for informing themselves and instructing their

20

staff regarding the correct procedures for filing under seal. The parties are encouraged to contact

21

the CM/ECF Helpdesk at [phone] prior to filing should they have any technical questions.

22

For additional direction, the parties may also refer to the updated procedures in CM/ECF Version

23

4.0 Enhancements and Changes, which is available on the court’s website.

24

Accordingly,

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

1. With respect to filing documents under seal, the parties must comply with: (i) the Local

27

Rules of Practice regarding electronic filing and filing under seal, (ii) the Ninth

28
3

1

Circuit’s opinions in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th

2

Cir. 2006), and its progeny, and (iii) the appropriate CM/ECF filing procedures.

3

2.

Plaintiff Steven Ringelberg shall have until May 31, 2018 file the Motion for Status

4

Conference (ECF No. 144) and exhibit “C” unsealed on the public docket and SERVE

5

both the unsealed and sealed version of motion and its’ exhibits on the defendants.

6

3. The defendants shall have until June 14, 2018, to file a memorandum of points and

7

authorities supporting any request to seal Exhibits A, B, D, & E. The memorandum of

8

points and authorities must make a particularized showing why the document(s) or

9

redacted portion thereof should remain under seal. The memorandum may also include

10

a supporting declaration or affidavit, a proposed order granting the motion to seal, and,

11

if applicable, a proposed redacted version of the filing.

12

4. If no memorandum of points and authorities is timely filed in compliance with this

13

Order, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to unseal the documents to make them

14

available on the public docket.

15

Dated this 30th day of May, 2018.

16

___________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4