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

Filing 95

ORDER denying 91 Joinder to Motion. Plaintiffs are to file a renewed motion to seal, that complies in full with all relevant caselaw and rules, no later than August 1, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 BRUCE WOLF, et al., 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. 91) Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to join Defendants’ motion for leave to file 17 exhibits under seal and motion for leave to file exhibits under seal. Docket No. 91; see also Docket 18 No. 90. Plaintiffs’ motion is defective for numerous reasons. First, Plaintiffs request two 19 distinctive forms of relief in one motion. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b). Second, Plaintiffs’ motion is 20 devoid of points and authorities, as well as relevant facts. See generally Docket No. 91; see also 21 Local Rule 7-2(a). Third, Plaintiffs improperly filed their motion. Local Rule IA 10-5 requires 22 that a party who files a motion to seal documents must file, concurrently with its motion, the 23 documents it asks the Court to allow it to file under seal. Plaintiffs fail to abide by these rules. 24 See Docket No. 92; see also Docket No. 88. 25 Lastly, and of most concern to the Court, Plaintiffs ask the Court for leave to file the 26 exhibits at issue under seal almost three weeks after the exhibits were filed on the public docket, 27 on June 29, 2018. Docket No. 88. “There is thus an inherent logical dilemma underlying the 28 parties’ requests because information that has already entered the public domain cannot in any 1 1 meaningful way be later removed from the public domain.” TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago 2 Techs. Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58227, *8 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2012) (denying after-the-fact 3 requests to seal portions of transcript of hearing that was open to the public); see also Constand v. 4 Cosby, 833 F.3d 405, 410 (3d Cir. 2016) (“[p]ublic disclosure cannot be undone”); 5 Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (“once a fact is widely 6 available to the public, a court cannot grant ‘effective relief’ to a person seeking to keep that fact 7 a secret”); Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235, 1238-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[t]his relief is no longer 8 available because the petitions are now available to the public”); Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 9 377 F.3d 133, 144 & n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The genie is out of the bottle . . . We have not the 10 means to put the genie back”). Therefore, while the Court can take protective measures to prevent 11 further harm, it cannot shield from the public information that has already been disclosed publicly. 12 See, e.g., Ashcraft v. Welk Resort Group, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148211, at *6 n.2 (D. Nev. Sept. 13 13, 2017). 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion. Docket No. 91. 15 Nonetheless, in the interest of the subject minors, the Court will allow the documents at issue to 16 be sealed on an interim basis pending resolution of a renewed motion to seal. Accordingly, the 17 Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to seal Docket Nos. 88-1 and 88-3. The Court ORDERS 18 Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion to seal, that complies in full with all relevant caselaw and rules, 19 no later than August 1, 2018. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 20, 2018 _______________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?