Harrington v. State of Nevada
ORDER Regarding 82 Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:18-cv-00009-APG-BNW
State of Nevada, et al.,
Pending before the Court was a Stipulated Protective Order, which the Court approved to
facilitate discovery in this case. This order reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public
access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal
must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under
seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the
Court under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those
documents under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a).
The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But
there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are
secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or
concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade
secret or other confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an
identifiable and significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public
access to judicial files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of
documents attached to nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the
presumption of public access. See Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the
secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to
overcome the presumption of public access. Id. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the
applicable standard and explain why that standard has been met. The fact that a court has
entered a blanket stipulated protective order and that a party has designated a document as
confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds
to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has
designated a document as confidential, the designator shall file (within seven days of the filing of
the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification for sealing each
document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If
neither filing is made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-
5, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above,
with respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the stipulated
protective order may conflict with this order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated
protective order is hereby superseded with this order.
DATED: October 16, 2020.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 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?