Wolf et al v. Clark County Department of Family Services et al

Filing 101

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' 100 Renewed Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Motion is due by 8/6/2018. The Court instructs the Clerk's Office to maintain Docket Nos. 88 -1 and 88 -3 under seal pending the Court's ruling on that motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

BRUCE WOLF,

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02084-JCM-NJK

Plaintiff(s),

11
12

v.

13

Order

CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES, et al.,

14
15
16

(Docket No. 100)

Defendant(s).
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for leave to file exhibits under seal.

17 Docket No. 100. Plaintiffs submit that Docket Nos. 88-1 and 88-3 should be sealed to maintain
18 the confidentiality of information regarding Plaintiffs pursuant to the protective order at Docket
19 No. 44, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”), Nevada Revised
20 Statute 432B.280, and “the law of this case.” Id. at 2-4. The renewed motion is defective for
21 numerous reasons.
22

First, Plaintiffs fail to provide a meaningfully developed argument as to how HIPPA

23 applies to the exhibits at issue. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D.
24 Nev. 2013) (courts only address arguments that are meaningfully developed). Second, Plaintiffs
25 inaccurately represent that the protective order entered by this Court requires the filing of any
26 documents the parties deem confidential under seal. Docket No. 100 at 2. The protective order
27 has no such requirement. See Docket No. 44. Moreover, the Court has specifically stated that
28 protective orders merely “facilitate discovery exchanges,” and do not “establish sufficient grounds
1

1 to seal a filed document.” Docket No. 45. Lastly, Plaintiffs fail to state whether the documents
2 they request to be sealed could be redacted, and if so, which portions of which documents. See
3 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman
4 Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court
5 must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”).
6

Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for leave to

7 file exhibits under seal. Docket No. 100. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a second renewed
8 motion no later than August 6, 2018. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to maintain
9 Docket Nos. 88-1 and 88-3 under seal pending the Court’s ruling on that motion.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: August 1, 2018
_______________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2