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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?