United States District Court, D. Nevada
K. SCHAAN, ESQ., MARJORIE E. KRATSAS, ESQ., BRITTANY A.
LEWIS, ESQ., HALL PRANGLE & SCHOONVELD, LLC, Attorneys
for Defendant Nevada CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C.
GAGE LAW FIRM, PLLC, DAVID O. CREASY, ESQ., Attorney for
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is the parties' Stipulated Protective Order and
Proposed Order (ECF No. 15), which the court approves with
the exception of paragraph 13. This order reminds counsel
that there is a presumption of public access to judicial
files and records. Paragraph 13 will be changed as follows:
In the event that counsel files or lodges with the Court any
Confidential Information, all documents attaching, quoting
from, or otherwise revealing the content of Confidential
Information shall be filed under seal in accordance with
Local Rule IA 10-5 [and the Ninth Circuit decision in
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172 (9th Cir. 2006)], or as otherwise required by the Court.
seeking to file a confidential document or utilize a
confidential document at trial must comply with the Ninth
Circuit's directives in Kamakana:
Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally
kept secret, ” a “strong presumption in favor of
access” is the starting point. ... A party seeking to
seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming
this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling
reasons” standard. ... that is, the party must
“articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings, ” that outweigh the general history
of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. ¶
In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to
outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify
sealing court records exist when such “court files
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, ”
such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
trade secrets. ... The mere fact that the production of
records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,
without more, compel the court to seal its records.
Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted).
justify the sealing of discovery materials attached to
non-dispositive motions, a particularized showing of good
cause is required. Id. at 1180. To justify the
sealing of discovery materials attached to dispositive
motions or used at trial, however, a higher threshold is
required: a particularized showing that compelling reasons
support secrecy. Id. “A ‘good cause'
showing will not, without more, satisfy a ‘compelling
reasons' test.” Id. When private discovery
materials are attached to a dispositive motion (or response
or reply) or used at trial, such materials become a part of a
judicial record, and as such “are public documents
almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that:
Paragraph 13 of the parties' Stipulated Protective Order
and Proposed Order (ECF No. 15) is NOT APPROVED.
parties shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA
10-5(b) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, with respect to any
documents filed under seal or used at trial.
parties' Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order
(ECF No. 15), as modified and signed by the court, is
CVS PHARMACY, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, dba
CVS Pharmacy #8789, DOES I - X and ROE CORPORATIONS I - X,
jointly and severally, Defendants.
parties herein agree that the discovery sought in this Action
is likely to require the production of certain confidential
health care, business, commercial, personnel, and financial
information, as well as other confidential information, and
that the parties have a legitimate need to protect the
confidentiality of such information. The parties herein,
therefore, agree and request that the Court hereby ORDER,
ADJUDGE, and DECREE as follows:
Party producing or propounding written discovery responses or
documents that contain trade secrets or other confidential
information (“Confidential Information”) shall
mark such documents with the word “CONFIDENTIAL.”
Documents so marked are sometimes referred to in this Order
as “Protected Documents.” The parties agree ...