April 15, 2011
DONNA CORBELLO, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Gregory H. Guillot email@example.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREGORY H. GUILLOT, P.C. 13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 774-4560 Facsimile: (214) 515-0411 John L. Krieger, (Nevada Bar No. 6023) JKrieger@LRLaw.com LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-8200 Facsimile: (702) 949-8389 George L. Paul GPaul@LRLaw.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice Robert H. McKirgan, RMckirgan@LRLaw.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 262-5326 Facsimile: (602) 734-3857 Attorneys for Plaintiff, DONNA CORBELLO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CERTAIN EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW ARGUMENTS SUUBMITTED IN HER REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO NEW DEFENDANTS'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATERIAL UNDER SEAL
Plaintiff Donna Corbello, by her attorneys, and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 94) entered into by the parties, and the Court's Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Documents entered on January 5, 2009 ("Order Regarding Sealing Requirements") (Doc. 95), herewith requests leave to file a certain document under seal as an exhibit to her motion to strike New Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's New Material and New Arguments Submitted in Her Reply Brief in Support of Her Request for Reconsideration of the Court's Discovery Order and Opposition to New Defendants' Request for Leave to Respond to Plaintiff's New Material (Docs. 491 & 493).
Pursuant to her obligations under the Stipulated Protective Order and Order Regarding Sealing Requirements, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting her to file the following document under seal, which was produced by Defendant Eric S. Elice ("Elice"), and marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" thereby, and which she intends to attach as an exhibit to her motion to strike as referenced above:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The relevant portions of Defendant Elice's responses to interrogatories propounded upon him by Plaintiff.
There is an exception to the normal presumption of access to judicial records, for "sealed discovery document[s] [attached] to a non-dispositive motion," such that "the usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). The public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non- dispositive motions because those documents are often "'unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.'" Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 104 S. Ct. 2199, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1984)). Moreover, "public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non- dispositive materials." Id. (citing Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213). Finally, when a district court grants a protective order to seal documents during discovery, "it already has determined that 'good cause' exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality." Id.
Accordingly, "good cause" exists for the filing of the foregoing documents under seal.
Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order herein, Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any document marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by an opposing party, and the document identified above was so marked by Defendant Elice. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not file the document with the Court without obtaining an Order and/or filing it under seal. Whereas, Plaintiff's motion to compel is not a dispositive motion, the filing of this document under seal falls within the exception to the general presumption of public access carved out by the courts of this Circuit for documents attached to non-dispositive motions. Accordingly, leave to file the subject document under seal should be granted.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that her Motion for Leave to File Certain Exhibits to Plaintiff's New Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's New Material and New Arguments Submitted in Her Reply Brief in Support of Her Request for Reconsideration of the Court's Discovery Order Under Seal (Docs. 491 & 493) be granted.
Dated: April 11, 2011
IT IS SO ORDERED:
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I, Gregory H. Guillot, hereby certify that on April 11, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document and this Certificate of Service with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notifications of such filing to the following:
© 1992-2014 VersusLaw Inc.