United States District Court, D. Nevada
COLLECTORS COFFEE INC. dba COLLECTORS CAFE, Plaintiff,
BLUE SUNSETS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on a review of the docket.
Defendant Blue Sunsets, LLC appeared in the case with the
filing of an Answer (ECF No. 22), which was filed under seal
and without leave of the court. Defendants Blue Sunsets and
Jencess Software and Technologies, Inc. jointly filed their
Responses (ECF Nos. 24, 27) to Plaintiff's motions for
injunctive relief, which were also filed under seal and
without leave of the court. See also Sealed Decls.
(ECF Nos. 25, 26). These filings violate the Local Rules of
Practice mandating that, unless otherwise permitted by
statute, rule, or prior court order, all papers filed under
seal “must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file
those documents under seal.” LR IA 10-5.
standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.
2006), must be met to overcome the presumption of public
access to judicial files, records, motions, and any exhibits.
Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy
judicial records, and such records are presumptively
accessible to the public. Id. at 1178. Thus, a party
seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of
overcoming this strong presumption. Id.
date, virtually every filing in this case has been under
seal. As explained in the court's recent Order (ECF No.
28), the parties will not be permitted to litigate this
entire case under seal. Plaintiff's motions to seal were
granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiff was ordered
to file a redacted version of its Complaint (ECF No. 1),
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No.
10), Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11), Motion
to Consolidate (ECF No. 16) on the public record. The
reasoning stated in the Order applies to Defendants with
have filed the Answer (ECF No. 22), Responses (ECF Nos. 24,
27), and Declarations (ECF Nos. 25, 26) under seal without
any explanation as to why these filings should be sealed.
Under Kamakana, a party must make a particularized
showing to overcome the presumption of public accessibility.
The mere fact that a court filing contains confidential
information does not satisfy this standard. Only those
portions of the filing that contain specific reference to
confidential documents or information, and the exhibits that
contain such confidential information, may be filed under
seal. See In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137
(9th Cir. 2003). The remainder of the filing and other
exhibits that do not contain confidential information must be
filed as publicly-accessible documents.
court will allow Defendants filings to remain sealed
temporarily so the parties and their counsel may confer about
what, if any, portions of the filings or exhibits should be
sealed. If any party determines that a filing or portion
thereof should remain sealed, that party will be 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 motion to seal must set forth either good
cause or compelling reasons to support the request for
IT IS ORDERED:
respect to filing documents under seal, the parties must
comply with: (i) the Local Rules of Practice regarding
electronic filing and filing under seal, (ii) the Ninth
Circuit's opinions in Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Center
for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092
(9th Cir. 2016), and (iii) the appropriate CM/ECF filing
parties and their counsel shall confer about what, if any,
portions of their filings, exhibits, etc. should be sealed.
If any party determines that a portion of a filing should
remain sealed, that party must file a motion to seal to make
a particularized showing why the documents should remain
support the request for sealing pursuant to Kamakana
and its progeny, a motion to seal must include a memorandum
of points and authorities making a particularized showing why
documents should remain under seal. The motion may also
include a supporting declaration or affidavit, a proposed
order granting the motion to seal, and, if applicable, a
proposed redacted version of the filing.
Defendants shall have until July 10, 2017, to submit a motion
to seal including an appropriate memorandum of points and
authorities making a particularized showing why their Answer
(ECF No. 22), Responses (ECF Nos. 24, 27), and Declarations
(ECF Nos. 25, 26) should be sealed.
Defendants' filings shall remain under seal until July
10, 2017. If Defendants fail to timely comply with this
order, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to unseal the
documents to make them available on the public docket.
Clerk of the Court is instructed to UNSEAL the Summons (ECF
Nos. 3, 4, 5), Certificate of Service (ECF No. 21), which
were filed under ...