T.R.P. Company, Inc. v. Similasan AG et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying 111 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 115 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 120 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 123 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 126 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 135 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 138 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 144 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 147 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 155 Motion to Seal; ORDER denying 162 Motion to Seal; Parties shall refile one motion per party or one stipulation due by 10/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 10/8/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

T.R.P. COMPANY, INC.,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-cv-02197-JCM-DJA

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
SIMILASAN AG, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Presently before the Court is Defendant Similasan AG’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 111)

13

filed on July 15, 2019, Motion to Seal (ECF No. 123) filed on August 5, 2019, and Motion to Seal

14

(ECF No. 155) filed on August 19, 2019. Also before the Court is Plaintiff T.R.P. Company’s

15

Motion to Seal (ECF No. 115) filed on July 15, 2019, Motion to Seal (ECF No. 135) filed on

16

August 5, 2019, Motion to Seal (ECF No. 138) filed on August 5, 2019, Motion to Seal (ECF No.

17

144) filed on August 19, 2019, and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 147) filed on August 19, 2019. Also

18

before the Court is Defendant Similasan Corporation’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 120) filed on

19

July 15, 2019, Motion to Seal (ECF No. 126) filed on August 5, 2019, and Motion to Seal (ECF

20

No. 162) filed on August 19, 2019. The aforementioned Motions are unopposed.

21

Defendants move to file portions of their summary judgment briefing under seal. Plaintiff

22

also moves to file portions of its summary judgment briefing under seal. However, none of the

23

Motions submitted to the Court articulates the appropriate standard for sealing court filings. A

24

party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and must

25

comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

26

F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

27

1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of

28

meeting the “compelling reasons” standard, as previously articulated in Kamakana. 447 F.3d

1

1172. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a

2

compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis

3

or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179).

4

“The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the

5

party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.

6

Significantly, the fact that the Court has entered a stipulated protective order in this matter

7

and that a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does

8

not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm

9

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l

10

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court approved the protective order to facilitate

11

discovery exchanges, but there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any

12

specific documents are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts

13

supported by declarations or concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to

14

protect any specific trade secret or other confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that

15

disclosure would cause an identifiable and significant harm. If the sole ground for a motion to

16

seal is that the opposing party has designated a document as confidential, the designator shall file

17

either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification for sealing each document at issue or

18

(2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If neither filing is

19

made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further notice.

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant Similasan AG’s Motion to Seal (ECF No.

21

111), Motion to Seal (ECF No. 123), and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 155) are denied without

22

prejudice.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff T.R.P. Company’s Motion to Seal (ECF No.

24

115), Motion to Seal (ECF No. 135), Motion to Seal (ECF No. 138), Motion to Seal (ECF No.

25

144), and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 147) are denied without prejudice.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Similasan Corporation’s Motion to Seal

27

(ECF No. 120), Motion to Seal (ECF No. 126), and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 162) are denied

28

without prejudice.
Page 2 of 3

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall refile one motion per party or one

2

stipulation to the extent the other parties do not oppose the sealing request, that lists all of the

3

filings they request sealed, addresses the standard articulated in Ctr. for Auto Safety, and explains

4

why that standard has been met by October 15, 2019. To the extent that the parties’ request to

5

seal is not renewed, then the Court shall unseal the documents subject to the above motions to

6

seal on October 16, 2019.

7

DATED: October 8, 2019

8
9
10

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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