Goldberg et al v. Wells Fargo Mortgage, Inc MTC Financial et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 4 Motion to Seal. Renewed motion due by 6/14/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: All Parties - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
JULIE A. GOLDBERG, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC, et al, )
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-01053-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 4)

16

Pending before the Court is a motion to seal the complaint and materials submitted in relation

17

to a motion for injunctive relief. Docket No. 4. The motion provides no citation to legal authority, no

18

analysis of any kind, and no identification of the particular information on which the request is based.

19

Instead, the motion relies on ipse dixit that some aspects of those filings contain sensitive medical or

20

financial information. Such a motion is woefully deficient. See Local Rule 7-2(d) (motions must be

21

supported by points and authorities); see also Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3

22

(D. Nev. 2013) (courts only address arguments that are meaningfully developed). Accordingly, the

23

motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

Several of the filings in this case were purportedly made on an ex parte basis, including the
complaint, but have been served on opposing counsel. Compare Docket No. 1 at 1 (“Ex Parte Complaint”)
with id. at 28 (certificate of service on opposing counsel). As such, it does not appear that these filings are
actually being made on an ex parte basis. See, e.g., Local Rule IA 7-2(a) (“An ex parte motion or application
is a motion or application that is filed with the court but is not served on the opposing or other parties”).

1

The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to continue to maintain the subject filings under seal on

2

an interim basis, however, as the Court will afford a further opportunity to demonstrate cause for sealing.

3

To the extent Plaintiffs continue to seek sealing of any of the filings in this case (or seek to redact parts

4

of any of the filings in this case), they must file a motion identifying by page and line each instance of

5

information for which their request is based. The motion must be supported by legal authority that

6

identifies the pertinent standards and explains how they are met with respect to each specific instance

7

of confidential information.2 The renewed motion to seal shall be filed no later than noon on June 14,

8

2018. Failure to file a motion in accordance with the above directives will result in the Court

9

unsealing the filed materials.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: June 11, 2018

12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal bears the
burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). The standard applicable to a motion to seal turns on whether the
sealed materials are submitted in conjunction with a dispositive or a non-dispositive motion. Whether a
motion is “dispositive” turns on “whether the motion at issue is more than tangentially related to the
underlying cause of action.” See Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th
Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016) (addressing applicability of “good cause” and “compelling
reasons” standards). Lastly, any request to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the
public sphere only the material that warrants secrecy. E.g., Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919
(E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1986)). As a
corollary, to the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful
information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing
entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting
the sensitive material”).
2