United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 125]
J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to seal and/or
redact certain exhibits filed in conjunction with a motion to
compel and for sanctions. Docket No. 125. Equifax and
non-party FIS Card filed declarations in support of sealing.
See Docket Nos. 133, 136.
Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of
public access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City
& County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331
F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file
documents under seal bears the burden of overcoming that
presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605
F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1178). Parties seeking to maintain the
confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive
motions must make a “particularized showing” of
“good cause.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137).
motion to seal relates to six exhibits, and redactions to
motion papers. With respect to Exhibits A-2 and D, an
insufficient explanation has been provided as to how
Equifax's assertion of competitive disadvantage applies
to the particular information in the exhibits. See
Docket No. 133 at ¶¶ 5-8. Moreover, Equifax
provides no indication why redaction, rather than outright
sealing, is not appropriate since it is obvious that some of
the information in the exhibits is not sealable.
E.g., Docket No. 123-2 at ¶ 5 (“Equifax
was initially served with the complaint in this case on
December 6, 2016”).
respect to Exhibit F, Equifax has now filed that document on
the public docket with limited redactions. Docket No. 133-1.
Equifax submits that these redacted portions of the report
reveal its proprietary credit report processes and company
policies, as well as its computing systems. Docket No. 133 at
3. Assuming that accurately describes the information at
issue, Equifax provides no explanation how the good cause
standard is met with respect to these redactions (e.g., that
it would suffer competitive harm through the disclosure of
respect to Exhibit G, Equifax apparently takes the position
that it need not make any showing of sealability because the
deposition took place three weeks before it filed its
declaration. Docket No. 133 at 3. The Court ordered that the
filing of a document under seal in conjunction with an
emergency motion requires a showing within 3 days that the
standards for sealing that document can be met. Docket No. 22
at 2 n.1. Equifax failed to do so. To the extent Equifax
seeks secrecy for this exhibit or parts thereof,
it shall file a declaration explaining how the good cause
standard is met by July 26, 2018. Failure to file a
declaration by that date will result in the unsealing of this
exhibit in its entirety.
respect to Exhibit J, FIS Card indicates that the exhibit
contains proprietary information, the revelation of which
would be competitively harmful. See Docket No. 136-1
at ¶ 13. The Court simply fails to discern from the
declaration provided how revelation of this document would be
harmful to FIS Card. Moreover, and significantly, the exact
same document is already part of the public record in this
case. See Docket No. 96-32.
Court SETS a hearing on the motion to seal
for 3:00 p.m. on August 9, 2018, in Courtroom
Any party or non-party seeking sealing of any of the subject
information shall appear for the hearing. Plaintiffs'
counsel shall provide notice of this order to FIS Card as
soon as practicable, and shall file a proof of service by
July 20, 2018.
 A request to seal documents must be
“narrowly tailored” to remove from the public
sphere only the material that warrants secrecy.
E.g., Ervine v. Warden, 214 F.Supp.3d 917,
919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v.
Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1986)). As a
corollary, to the extent any confidential information can be
easily redacted while leaving meaningful information
available to the public, the Court must order that redacted
versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents.
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also In re Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417,
425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in
mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive
 If Equifax seeks only redactions to
the exhibit, it shall file on the public docket a redacted
version of the exhibit.
 In addition to the above exhibits, the
Court will also hear argument on the request to seal the
compact disc that was manually filed (Exhibit I) and the
request to redact portions of the motions to compel and ...