Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians v. United States Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting Plaintiff's ECF No. 3 Motion to Seal, in accordance with this order - ECF Nos. 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 shall remain sealed; directing that all future documents filed in this action that parties believe should be filed unde r seal shall be filed in the following manner (see order for details); directing Plaintiff to serve full unredacted copies of all documents currently filed in this action, including this order, on the defendants. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
10

BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND of the TEMOAK TRIBE of WESTERN SHOSHONE
INDIANS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, and JILL C. SILVEY,

14
Defendants.
15
16

3:16-CV-0268-LRH-WGC
ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff the Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western

17

Shoshone Indians’ (“Battle Mountain Band”) motion to seal. ECF No. 3. In its motion, the Battle

18

Mountain Band seeks to seal its civil cover sheet (ECF No. 1), its complaint (ECF No. 2), the

19

present motion to seal (ECF No. 3), and its motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4).

20

As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public

21

access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.

22

1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that

23

presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are also

24

deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

25

Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

26

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

1

Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations

2

omitted).

3

Here, the Battle Mountain Band seeks to seal the aforementioned documents because the

4

documents and exhibits contain the specific location of traditional cultural property (“TCP”) that

5

contains sacred and spiritual features of significant cultural significance to the Battle Mountain

6

Band. The Battle Mountain Band argues that public disclosure of the locations of this land through

7

the filing of public, non-sealed documents, would cause desecration of the lands due to public

8

intrusion and cause a severe loss to its culture. The Battle Mountain Band contends that the

9

location of the land should be held confidential as similar properties, once becoming public

10

knowledge, have historically been raided by looters and collectors of tribal artifacts and unique

11

cultural and spiritual resources. The court agrees. Therefore, the court finds that the Battle

12

Mountain Band has satisfied its burden to show compelling reasons for filing the various pleadings

13

under seal. Accordingly, the court shall grant the Battle Mountain Band’s motion to seal these

14

documents.

15

However, the court shall require the Battle Mountain Band to file redacted copies of its

16

complaint (ECF No. 2), motion to seal (ECF No. 3), and motion for a temporary restraining order

17

(ECF No. 4) with the court within five (5) days from entry of this order. The redacted documents

18

shall redact only that information that contains the identified location of the traditional cultural

19

property and other similar information that should remain confidential. Further, all future

20

documents filed in this action that the Battle Mountain Band believes should be filed under seal

21

shall be filed in the following manner: a redacted copy of the document filed publically, an

22

unredacted copy of the document filed under seal, and a related motion to seal the unredacted copy

23

of the document identifying why the document should remain sealed. Moreover, the Battle

24

Mountain Band shall serve full unredacted copies of all documents currently filed in this action on

25

the defendants in this action, including a copy of this order, as well as full unredacted copies of any

26

future filings in this action.
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED

2

in accordance with this order. Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet (ECF No. 1), complaint (ECF No. 2),

3

motion to seal (ECF No. 3), and motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4) shall remain

4

sealed.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed in this action that either party

6

believes should be filed under seal shall be filed in the following manner: (1) a redacted copy of the

7

document filed publically, (2) an unredacted copy of the document filed under seal, and (3) a

8

related motion to seal the unredacted copy of the document identifying why the document should

9

remain sealed.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve full unredacted copies of all

11

documents currently filed in this action, including a copy of this order, on the defendants.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED this 20th day of May, 2016.

14
15

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3