United States District Court, D. Nevada
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Silvia Sandoval filed her Motion for Adverse Presumption or
Inference Due to Defendant's Spoliation of Evidence (ECF
No. 28). Both the motion and attached exhibits were filed
under seal on March 9, 2018. However, Plaintiff did not
request leave to file the documents under seal, or justify
why the motion and supporting exhibits should be filed under
seal. Pursuant to LR 10-5 of the Local Rules of Practice,
attorneys must file documents under seal using the
court's electronic filing procedures:
Unless otherwise permitted by statute, rule, or prior court
order, papers filed with the court under seal must be
accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents
under seal. If papers are filed under seal under prior court
order, the papers must state on the first page, directly
under the case number: “FILED UNDER SEAL UNDER COURT
ORDER (ECF No.__).” All papers filed under seal will
remain sealed until the court either denies the motion to
seal or enters an order unsealing them.
LR IA 10-5(a). Additionally, the 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 these
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
sealed her entire motion and attached exhibits 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. No.
protective order governing confidentiality of documents
exchanged in discovery was entered in this case. However,
even if one was entered to facilitate the parties'
discovery exchanges, the mere fact that one party designated
information as confidential under a protective order does not
satisfy Kamakana standard. Only those portions of a
motion 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 motion, and other exhibits that do not contain
confidential information, must be filed as
publicly-accessible documents. See LR IA 10-5(b)
(“The court may direct the unsealing of papers filed
under seal, with or without redactions, after notice to all
parties and an opportunity to be heard.”).
cursory review of the motion the court could not determine
any basis for the motion or its supporting exhibits to be
sealed. However, the motion and attached exhibits will remain
temporarily sealed to enable the parties to confer about
what, if any, portions of the motion or exhibits should be
sealed. Each side shall have until March 26,
2018, to file an appropriate memorandum of points
and authorities making a particularized showing why the
documents should remain under seal.
IT IS ORDERED:
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
its progeny, and (iii) the appropriate CM/ECF filing
parties must confer about what, if any, portions of the
motion, exhibits, etc., should remain sealed. If any party
determines that a portion of the filing should remain sealed,
that party must file a motion to seal making a particularized
showing why the document(s) or redacted portion thereof
should remain under seal.
request for sealing must comply with the Ninth Circuit's
standards in Kamakana, and must include a memorandum
of points and authorities making a particularized showing why
the document(s) should be sealed or redacted. The motion
should 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.
Plaintiff Silvia Sandoval's Motion for Adverse
Presumption or Inference Due to Defendant's Spoliation of
Evidence (ECF No. 28) and attached exhibits will remain
sealed until the court either denies the motion to seal or
enters an order unsealing them.
party asserting confidentiality has the burden of overcoming
the presumption of public access and must file a motion to
seal on or before March 26, 2018. If no
motion to seal is timely filed in compliance with this order,
the Clerk of the Court will be directed to unseal the ...