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

Filing 259

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 237 motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the seal on ECF Nos. 238 , 238 -1, and 238 -2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 238 , 239 motion for a scheduling order and to expedite t rial is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a trial setting is premature, and each defendant has until March 14, 2025, to file a motion for summary judgment addressing only the alternative grounds that the Ninth Circuit panel referenced in its opinion. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/29/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 EB Holdings II, Inc., and QXH II, Inc., 5 6 v. Case No. 2:20-cv-02248-JAD-NJK Plaintiffs Order Regarding Case Scheduling on Remand Illinois National Insurance Company, et 7 al., 8 ECF Nos. 237, 237, 239 Defendants 9 10 Nearly two years ago, United States District Judge James C. Mahan granted 11 summary judgment in this insurance-coverage suit in favor of the insurers based on the 12 affirmative defense of material misrepresentation. 1 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel 13 reversed, finding that Texas law—not Nevada law—should have been applied and that its 14 application leaves genuine issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on that 15 defense. Although the insurers offered alternative grounds for “why the panel should 16 affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment,” the panel “decline[d] to reach 17 these arguments in the first instance” and remanded “to the district court so it may 18 evaluate in the first instance” these “other issues.” 2 19 20 21 1 ECF No. 212. 22 2 ECF No. 232 at 24. 23 1 1 Since that remand last summer, little has happened. Fearing that they might lose a 2 key witness before this case has a chance to get to trial, the plaintiffs filed a motion 3 asking for an expedited trial setting. 3 The insurers oppose the request, pointing out that 4 the issues that the Ninth Circuit panel sent back to this court are still unresolved, and 5 setting this case for trial would put the cart before the horse. 4 Then last week, Judge 6 Mahan recused himself from this case and it was reassigned to me. 5 7 The plaintiffs’ motion for a scheduling order and to expedite trial was filed under 8 seal 6 because it contains sensitive medical information about key fact witness and QXH 9 principal Howard Meyers. 7 A redacted version of that motion was filed publicly. 8 10 Plaintiffs ask this court to maintain the seal on the full version of the filing. 9 Unless a 11 particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” there is a “strong presumption in 12 favor of access” to the record. 10 Parties seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome 13 this presumption by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual 14 findings,” that outweigh the traditional right of public access to each document they seek 15 16 17 3 ECF Nos. 238, 239. 18 4 ECF No. 244. 5 ECF Nos. 257, 258. 19 6 ECF No. 238. 20 7 ECF No. 237. 8 ECF No. 239. 21 9 ECF No. 237. 22 10 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 2 1 to seal. 11 In general, compelling reasons for sealing exist when court records might 2 become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as “to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 12 I find that the personal 4 nature of the information that the plaintiffs have redacted from the publicly filed version 5 of the motion provides a compelling reason to seal the full version, so I grant the motion 6 to seal it. 7 I deny the portion of the plaintiffs’ motion seeking to expedite trial because I find 8 that a trial setting would be premature in light of the posture of this case. The Ninth 9 Circuit panel remanded this case with instructions for the district court to evaluate in the 10 first instance the alternative grounds that the insurers offered for affirming the grant of 11 summary judgment. 13 That remains to be done. 12 But the insurers are wrong that there are “pending” motions for summary 13 judgment that tee those issues up. 14 There are no pending dispositive motions because 14 the ones that Judge Mahan decided didn’t get automatically reanimated on remand. And 15 with many of the issues from those old motions having been addressed by the panel, it 16 would be judicially inefficient for this court to attempt to carve out from those nearly 17 three-year-old zombie motions the still-live points. New motions are a far better vehicle 18 19 11 Id. 20 12 Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 884 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 21 13 ECF No. 232 at 24. 22 14 Id. 23 3 1 for framing what’s left. So I give each of the defendants until March 14, 2025, to file a 2 motion for summary judgment to address only the “alternative grounds” for granting 3 summary judgment that the panel referenced in its opinion. 15 Briefing on those motions 4 will then proceed in accordance with Local Rule 7-2. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to seal [ECF No. 237] is 6 GRANTED; the Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF Nos. 7 238, 238-1, and 238-2. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a scheduling order and to 9 expedite trial [ECF Nos. 238, 239] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a trial 10 setting is premature, and each defendant has until March 14, 2025, to file a motion 11 for summary judgment addressing only the alternative grounds that the Ninth 12 Circuit panel referenced in its opinion. The parties are cautioned that this is not an 13 opportunity to relitigate any issue decided by the Ninth Circuit panel. If genuine issues 14 of fact remain for trial after the new summary-judgment motions are decided, I will set 15 the trial as expeditiously as possible. 16 ______________________________ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey January 29, 2025 17 18 19 20 21 22 15 See id. 23 4

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?