Sternberg v. Warneck ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MICHAEL C. STERNBERG, Case No. 2:23-cv-01466-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER 7 SHELLEY WARNECK, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to Defendant 11 Shelly Warneck’s Motion to Consolidate Cases. ECF No. 25. The Court notes while Defendant 12 filed a sealed Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 24), Defendant did not simultaneously file a 13 copy of the Motion on the publicly available docket redacting any references to Exhibits 1 and 2 that 14 are appropriate and using place holders for these Exhibits attached to the Motion. Defendant is, as 15 stated below, ordered to immediately file the Motion to Consolidate Cases on the publicly available 16 docket with redactions and place holders for reference to and attached Exhibits 1 and 2. 17 Under federal law, the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendant must meet her 18 burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring 19 disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) 20 (holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions 21 must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). When a 22 document is attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access 23 to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force ....” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation 24 omitted). “Thus a particularized showing, under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c), will suffice 25 to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” 26 Id. at 1180 (citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted). The mere fact that the production of 27 records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination or exposure to further litigation will not 1 || 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons require a demonstration of something more, such as wh« 2 || court files have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify priva 3 || spite, promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon 4 || Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 5 Courts often apply the “compelling reason” standard to requests to seal motions 6 || consolidate. See Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE, Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO, 2021 WL 64988: 7 || at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2021). Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Motion consist of orders issued in the fami 8 || law matter of Warneck v. Sternberg, Case No. 2012-1-CP-020194, in Santa Clara County, Californ 9 || Superior Court. Defendant explains that under California Family Code § 7643, applicable in chi 10 || parentage cases, aside from certain exceptions, “all papers and records, other than the final judgmet 11 |} pertaining to the action or proceeding ... are subject to inspection and copying only in exception 12 || cases upon an order of the court for good cause shown.” Defendant states that she does not belie’ 13 |} Exhibits 1 and 2 should be sealed and is only filing this Motion to Seal out of an abundance. 14 || caution so as not to potentially run afoul of California law. 15 The Court finds that Exhibits 1 and 2 are sufficient sensitive and reasonably interpreted . 16 || falling under California Family Code § 7643 such that sealing these records meets the □□□□□□□□□ 17 || reason standard established under federal law. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits 1 a1 19 || 2 to Defendant Shelly Warneck’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2 to ECF No. 24 are and shall rema 21 || sealed. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must no later than January 10, 2024, file 23 || copy of the Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 24) on the publicly available docket □□□□□□□□ 24 || Exhibits 1 and 2 by using place holders. If the contents of Exhibits 1 and 2 are discussed in tl 25 || Motion to Consolidate Cases, Defendant may redact such references. 26 Dated this 4th day of January, 2024. 27 ay peat Apeastiolh ELAYNA J. YOU: H 28 UNITEDSTATES MAGI TE JUDGE