United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (MOT. TO SEAL - ECF NO. 28)
A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Carol Dunlap's
Motion to Seal (ECF No. 28). This Motion is referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR
IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice. On August 10, 2017,
the court held a hearing on Ms. Dunlap's Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 27) and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 28). Present was
Matthew Knepper on behalf of Plaintiff, and Jordan Arakawa on
behalf of Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(“Experian”). The court has considered the
Motion, Experian's Response (ECF No. 32), and the
arguments of counsel at the hearing.
Motion seeks leave to file under seal certain documents and
exhibits referenced in the filings related to Dunlap's
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 25). See Pl.'s Sealed
Mot. (ECF No. 27) (attaching Exhibit A (ECF No. 27-1),
Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 27-2), Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 27-3), Exhibit 3
(ECF No. 27-4), Exhibit 4 (ECF No. 27-5), Exhibit 5 (ECF No.
27-6), Exhibit 6 (ECF No. 27-7), Exhibit 7 (ECF No.27-8),
Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 27-9), Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 27-10), Exhibit
10 (ECF No. 27-11), Exhibit 11 (ECF No. 27-12), Exhibit 12
(ECF No. 27-13), Exhibit 13 (ECF No. 27-14), Exhibit 14 (ECF
No. 27-15), Exhibit 15 (ECF No. 27-16), Exhibit 16 (ECF No.
27-17)). Ms. Dunlap seeks leave to file the unredacted
documents under seal based on her obligation pursuant to the
Protective Order (ECF No. 12) entered in this case governing
motion to seal states that Dunlap does not endorse a
“categorical protection” for all of the documents
Experian has produced in discovery. See Mot. to Seal
(ECF No. 28) at 2. However, Ms. Dunlap acknowledges that some
of the documents contain unique identifiers such as full
financial account numbers and social security numbers, and
these “have little relevance to prosecution of the
case, and a potential for great harm if widely
to LR IC 6-1 of the Local Rules of Practice, parties
“must refrain from including-or must partially redact,
where inclusion is necessary-the following personal-data
identifiers from all documents filed with the court,
including exhibits, whether filed electronically or in paper,
unless the court orders otherwise”: (1) social security
numbers, (2) full names of minor children, (3) dates of
birth, (4) financial account numbers, (5) home addresses, and
(6) tax identification numbers. LR IC 6-1(a); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
Dunlap does not specifically identify which exhibits to her
Sealed Motion to Compel contain personal data identifiers,
and none of the exhibits are redacted to protect her personal
data identifiers. Nevertheless, the court's review of the
exhibits reveals that Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 27-3) and Exhibit 4
(ECF No. 27-5) contain her personal data identifiers.
Redactions are not practical for these documents and would
leave meaningful information available to the public. See
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
1137 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011). The
disclosure of Ms. Dunlap's personal data identifiers may
result in particularized harm; thus, the court finds good
cause for Exhibits 2 and 4 to be sealed.
Response (ECF No. 32), Defendant Experian requests that the
unredacted version of Dunlap's Motion to Compel and
Exhibits 5, 6, and 14 remain under seal. Experian also
submits redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 8 for the public
record. See Redacted Exhibit 3 (ECF No. 32-4);
Redacted Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 32-3). Experian provides a
particularized showing why the unredacted Motion to Compel
along with its Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 should remain
reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the
Ninth Circuit's directives set forth in Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.
2006), and its progeny, the court finds that the parties have
met their burden of establishing good cause for the
unredacted Motion to Compel and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
and 14 to remain sealed. The parties have narrowly tailored
the sealing requests to the extent possible by filing
redacted versions of the underlying motion as well as
Exhibits 3 and 8. See Pls.' Redacted Mot. (ECF
No. 25); Redacted Exhibit 3 (ECF No. 32-4); Redacted Exhibit
8 (ECF No. 32-3). However, no party offered particularized
showing for sealing Exhibits A, 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
or 16, which are the parties' written discovery requests
and correspondence. A blanket protective order is not
sufficient to permit the filing of these documents under
seal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff Carol Dunlap's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 28) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
unredacted Motion to Compel (ECF No. 27), Exhibit 2 (ECF No.
27-3), Exhibit 3 (ECF No. 27-4), Exhibit 4 (ECF No. 27-5),
Exhibit 5 (ECF No. 27-6), Exhibit 6 (ECF No. 27-7), Exhibit 8
(ECF No. 27-9), and Exhibit 14 (ECF No. 27-15) shall remain
Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL Exhibit A
(ECF No. 27-1), Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 27-2), Exhibit 7 (ECF
No.27-8), Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 27-10), Exhibit 10 (ECF No.
27-11), Exhibit 11 (ECF No. 27-12), Exhibit 12 (ECF No.
27-13), Exhibit 13 ...