Clemons v. Williams ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 DE’MARIAN A. CLEMONS, Case No.: 2:13-cv-00093-RFB-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order 13 v. (Docket No. 249) 14 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 Defendants’ counsel moves for leave to file its motion to withdraw (Docket No. 250) under 17 seal. Docket No. 249. For the reasons below, the Court defers ruling on that request until, as 18 detailed below, Defendants file a supplement to their motion. Defendants must file that 19 supplement by September 6, 2019. 20 I. STANDARDS 21 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City 22 & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 23 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). To keep documents attached to non-dispositive motions 24 confidential, parties must make a “particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana, 447 25 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137). 26 Any request to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored to the material that warrants 27 secrecy. E.g., Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press- 28 Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1986)). Thus, if confidential material can 1 be easily redacted while leaving meaningful material available to the public, the Court must order 2 that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see 3 also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) 4 (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”). 5 II. ANALYSIS 6 Defendants’ request to seal the motion to withdraw is not narrowly tailored to the material 7 that they allege warrants secrecy. Defendants assert that the “motion identifies several 8 communications between attorneys at the [Office of the Nevada Attorney General] and Ms. 9 Dressler” and that those “communications involve legal advice concerning the instant case.” 10 Docket No. 249 at 3. Defendants fail to identify the communications in a twenty-page filing that 11 allegedly warrant secrecy. It is unclear to the Court why all twenty pages should be sealed rather 12 than redacting actual confidential material. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 Therefore, the Court defers ruling on Defendants’ motion for leave to seal the motion to 15 withdraw (Docket No. 250). No later than September 6, 2019, Defendants must file a supplement 16 to their motion that explains with particularity whether the alleged confidential material in the 17 motion can be easily redacted. If the material can be easily redacted, Defendants must also file a 18 proposed redacted version of the motion by the same date. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: August 23, 2019 21 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28