United States District Court, D. Nevada
IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL
ORDER (MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL - ECF NO.
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on the Arandell Plaintiffs'
Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 2708). The court notes
that this Motion was erroneously filed under seal when
the motion itself does not contain any confidential
information-only the attached exhibits present confidential
information. The Motion will be unsealed.
Motion seeks leave to file under seal certain documents
referenced in the Supplemental Declaration of Ryan M.
Billings dated December 8, 2016 (ECF No. 2707-1) in support
of the Arandell Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Reliant
Energy, Inc., to Provide Discovery and Request for Remedial
Relief (ECF No. 2670):
• RELMDL0016035-83 (Collection of emails re: trading on
• RELMDL0017176-77 (Email dated 4/10/01 with
• RELMDL0020095-103 (May 20, 2002 Verification by Les
documents are referred to as “Exhibit E, ”
“Exhibit F, ” and “Exhibit G, ” and
are discussed in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of that Declaration.
See (ECF No. 2708-2, 2708-3, 2708-4). Notably, the
Arandell Plaintiffs' also attach another document,
RELMDL0028584, referred to as “Exhibit D” (ECF
No. 2708-1), which is not specifically discussed in the
Motion. Based on its inclusion with the other sealed
exhibits, the court will construe the Motion as requesting
leave to file this document under seal as well.
documents were filed under seal because counsel for opposing
parties designated the documents as
“confidential” pursuant to the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 1147), which requires
the moving parties to request permission to file such
documents under seal. See also Protective Order
Governing Confidentiality of Documents (ECF No. 1152); Dec.
24, 2015 Order (ECF No. 2257) (directing the parties to
comply with the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172 (9th Cir. 2006)). The movants themselves have no concern
regarding the confidentiality of the documents.
(or parties) who designated documents as confidential is
required to meet the Kamakana standards to overcome
the presumption of public access to judicial files, records,
motions, and any exhibits. The court will allow the documents
to remain sealed temporarily so that the designating parties
and their counsel may confer about what, if any, portions of
the documents should be sealed or redacted. See In re
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425
(9th Cir. 2011) (sealing of entire documents is improper when
any confidential information can be redacted while leaving
meaningful information available to the public). If a
designating party determines that a filing or portion thereof
should remain sealed, it is required to file within 14 days
an appropriate memorandum of points and authorities making a
particularized showing why the documents should remain under
seal. Pursuant to Kamakana and its progeny, any
request to seal must set forth either good cause or
compelling reasons to support sealing. See Ctr. for Auto
Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.
2016) (finding that the standards courts apply to sealing
requests turn on the relevance of the documents to the
substantive merits of a case-not on the relief sought).
IT IS ORDERED:
Clerk of the Court SHALL UNSEAL the Motion to Seal (ECF No.
2708), but not the attached exhibits.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2708) is DENIED
Exhibits attached to the Motion shall remain under seal until
March 8, 2017.
designating party (or parties) shall have until March
8, 2017, to file a memorandum of points and
authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to
make a particularized ...