Schaefer, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 BRIAN K. SCHAEFER, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-001333-JCM-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 11 Defendant. 12 On November 30, 2023, the Court approved the parties’ stipulated protective order to 13 facilitate discovery in this case. Docket No. 26. See also Docket No. 15. The Court now issues 14 this order to remind counsel that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and 15 records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 16 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 17 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 18 The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under 19 seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the 20 Court under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those 21 documents under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a). 22 The Court approved the blanket protective order, Docket No. 26, to facilitate discovery 23 exchanges. But there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific 24 documents are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by 25 declarations or concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any 26 specific trade secret or other confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure 27 would cause an identifiable and significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a 28 presumption of public access to judicial files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the 1} confidentiality of documents attached to nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to 2|| overcome the presumption of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling reasons 4] sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. /d. at 1180. All motions to seal must 5] address the applicable standard and explain why that standard has been met. The fact that a 6] court has entered a blanket stipulated protective order and that a party has designated a document 7| as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient 8] grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 9} 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 10] 1992). 11 If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated a document as confidential, the designator shall file (within seven days of the filing of 13] the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification for sealing each 14] document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If 15] neither filing is made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further notice. 16 IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10- 17|| 5, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, 18] with respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the stipulated protective 19] order at Docket No. 26 may conflict with this order or Local Rule JA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is hereby superseded with this order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 16, 2024. UD NANCY J\KOPPE 24 UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28