Gypsum Resources LLC v. Clark County et al

Filing 71

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Temporarily Seal Exhibits to its (1) Reply to Justin Jones Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence, and (2) Reply to Clark C ounty and the Board of County Commissioners Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence (ECF No. 63 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to the Reply to Jus tin Jones' Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiffs Reply to Clark County and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners' Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing (found at ECF N o. 65 ) are temporarily sealed. IT FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have through and including 9/23/2022 to oppose Plaintiff's position that the exhibits identified in the instant Motion need not be sealed. Defendants' failure to oppose Plaintiff's position by or before 9/23/2022 will be interpreted by the Court as Defendants' consent to granting the unsealing of exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to the Reply to Justin Jones' Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiff's Reply to Clark County and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners'Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 9/15/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:19-cv-00850-GMN-EJY Document 71 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company,

Case No. 2:19-cv-00850-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Nevada; and CLARK COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants.
CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Nevada; and CLARK COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Counterclaimant,
v.

15

GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company,

16

Counterdefendant.

17
18

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Temporarily Seal Exhibits to its (1) Reply

19

to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions

20

for Destruction of Evidence, and (2) Reply to Clark County and the Board of County

21

Commissioner’s Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions

22

for Destruction of Evidence. ECF No. 63. Despite the contents of the Motion, Defendants filed no

23

response.

24

As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming

25

the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City

26

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to

27

maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of

28

showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). The mere fact that the production of records
1

Case 2:19-cv-00850-GMN-EJY Document 71 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3

1

may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone

2

compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136

3

(9th Cir. 2003). Further, a party “may not simply rely on the Stipulated Protective Order … to justify

4

sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17-

5

cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) discussing and citing

6

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a

7

showing of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992)

8

(blanket stipulated protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of

9

“good cause”).

10

Plaintiff’s Motion contends the exhibit for which it has sought temporary sealing protection

11

need not be sealed. The Court tends to agree; however, out of an abundance of caution, the Court

12

provides Defendants one additional opportunity to oppose the position taken by Plaintiff in its instant

13

Motion.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Temporarily Seal

15

Exhibits to its (1) Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for

16

Imposition of Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence, and (2) Reply to Clark County and the Board

17

of County Commissioner’s Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of

18

Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence (ECF No. 63) is GRANTED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to the Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition

20

to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiff’s Reply to Clark County

21

and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners’ Opposition to Motion to Convene

22

Evidentiary Hearing (found at ECF No. 65) are temporarily sealed.

23

IT FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have through and including September 23, 2022

24

to oppose Plaintiff’s position that the exhibits identified in the instant Motion need not be sealed.

25

Defendants’ failure to oppose Plaintiff’s position by or before September 23, 2022 will be

26

interpreted by the Court as Defendants’ consent to granting the unsealing of exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to

27
28
2

Case 2:19-cv-00850-GMN-EJY Document 71 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3

1

the Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 and

2

3 to Plaintiff’s Reply to Clark County and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners’

3

Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing.

4

DATED this 15th day of September, 2022.

5
6
7

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3