Sciara v. Campbell
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 98 Defendant Stephan Campbell's Motion to Seal Exhibit E-2 to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 106 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-2 to 105 his Response is GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:18-cv-01700-DJA
Presently before the Court is Defendant Stephan Campbell’s Motion to Seal Exhibit E-2 to
Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 98), filed on April 9, 2021. To date, no response has
been filed. The Court finds this matter properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
Defendant requests leave to file Exhibit E-2 to his Motion under seal as it contains
information designated as confidential under the parties’ protective order. Plaintiff did not file
any response. Consequently, Plaintiff’s failure to file points and authorities in response to the
motion “constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).
Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant has met the standard to seal. Although the fact
that the information was disclosed as confidential under the Protective Order is not alone
sufficient, it is the type of confidential financial information that may be protected by the Ninth
Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)
and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). The
Court finds that protecting confidential financial information is a compelling reason to seal
Exhibit E-2. See, e.g., Youtoo Techs., Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 2017 WL 3396496 at *2 (D. Nev. Aug.
7, 2017). Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 98).
In addition, this matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-2 to his
Response ECF No. 105 (ECF No. 106), filed on April 23, 2021. Again, the Court finds that the
standard to seal has been met as the documents were designated as confidential under the parties’
protective order and the Court finds protecting financial information at issue in the Exhibits 1-2 is
a compelling reason.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Stephan Campbell’s Motion to Seal Exhibit
E-2 to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 98) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 99) and the exhibits ECF No. 99-1 through ECF No. 99-6 while maintaining
the seal on Exhibit E-2 (ECF No. 99-7).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-2 to his
Response ECF No. 105 (ECF No. 106) is granted. Plaintiff shall file his Exhibits 1-2 under seal.
DATED: April 26, 2021.
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
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?