EB Holdings II, Inc. et al v. Illinois National Insurance Company et al

Filing 209

ORDER. The Court DEFERS ruling on the 181 , 187 , 197 motions to seal. The parties must file a joint supplement by August 8, 2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 EB HOLDINGS II, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02248-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket Nos. 181, 187, 197] ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 12 13 Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Defendant Illinois National’s motion to seal. Docket No. 181. 14 Plaintiff EB Holdings II filed a response. Docket No. 183. Also pending before the Court is 15 Plaintiff EB Holdings II’s motion to seal. Docket No. 187. Defendant Illinois National filed a 16 response. Docket No. 198. Also pending before the Court is Defendant Illinois National’s motion 17 to seal. Docket No. 197. Plaintiffs EB Holdings II and QXH II filed a response. Docket No. 200. 18 For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motions to seal and 19 ORDERS the parties to file a joint supplement as identified below. 20 I. STANDARDS 21 There is a strong presumption in favor of the public’s access to judicial filings. See, e.g., 22 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Documents filed in 23 relation to a dispositive matter may not be sealed absent a specific showing of compelling reasons. 24 Id. at 1179-80. 25 Any request to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the public 26 sphere only the material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 27 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021) (citing Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 28 2016)). To the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving 1 1 meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed 2 rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 3 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 4 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive 5 material”). 6 II. MOTION TO SEAL AT DOCKET NO. 181 7 This motion to seal relates to a one-page financial summary. Docket No. 182. The motion 8 is predicated on the declaration of counsel that such information has been kept confidential and 9 that its public disclosure may cause competitive harm to Plaintiff. Docket No. 181-1. It is not 10 clear that outside counsel (as opposed to a corporate representative) has personal knowledge as to 11 the declared facts. See Knaggs v. Yahoo! Inc., 2016 WL 3916350, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) 12 (courts may refuse to consider declarations that lack sufficient foundational information such as 13 the requisite personal knowledge). Moreover, although it appears redaction may not be feasible 14 with respect to this document, no argument has been presented on that issue. 15 III. MOTION TO SEAL AT DOCKET NO. 187 16 This sealing request relates to eight exhibits, two of which were designated as confidential 17 by Plaintiff and six of which were designated as confidential by Defendant. 18 With respect to Exhibit LLL (Docket No. 188-5) and Exhibit MMM (Docket No. 188-6), 19 Plaintiff’s counsel attests that the exhibits are expert reports that contain sensitive information. 20 Docket No. 187-1. With respect to Exhibit FF (Docket No. 188-2) and Exhibit GG (Docket No. 21 188-3), Defendant’s counsel attests that these documents contain sensitive business information. 22 Docket No. 198-1. It is not clear that the declarations submitted are based on personal knowledge 23 and no showing has been made that redaction is not feasible. 24 With respect to Exhibit AA (Docket No. 188-1), Exhibit III (Docket No. 188-4), Exhibit 25 RRR (Docket No. 188-7), and Exhibit SSS (Docket No. 188-8), Defendant designated those 26 documents as confidential. See Docket No. 187 at 2. As such, Defendant was required to do one 27 of two things upon their filing in this case: (1) provide a basis for their sealing or (2) file a notice 28 2 1 of withdrawal of the confidentiality designation and consent to unsealing. Docket No. 59 at 2.1 2 Defendant does not appear to have done either for these documents. 3 IV. MOTION TO SEAL AT DOCKET NO. 197 4 This motion to seal relates to a rater worksheet. Docket No. 189-12. Defendant’s counsel 5 attests that such information has been kept confidential and that its public disclosure may cause 6 competitive harm. Docket No. 197-1. It is not clear that the declaration submitted is based on 7 personal knowledge and no showing has been made that redaction is not feasible. 8 V. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons discussed more fully above, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motions to 10 seal. The parties must file a joint supplement by August 8, 2022. With respect to any exhibits for 11 which sealing is no longer sought, the joint supplement must include an unambiguous statement 12 that the parties consent to unsealing. With respect to any exhibits for which sealing continues to 13 be sought, the joint supplement must include the factual or legal showing addressing the issues 14 raised above. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 1, 2022 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court retains the discretion to unseal documents for which no showing has been made 27 that sealing is warranted, see id., but the Court’s preference is to have a clear indication from the parties that the information at issue does not actually warrant sealing prior to revealing that 28 information to the public. 3

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?