Hollingsworth v. City of North Las Vegas ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 ANDREA HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02230-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiffs, Order 6 v. [Docket Nos. 80, 82] 7 CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file Exhibit 25 to March 8, 2024, 11 motion to compel under seal. Docket No. 80. See also Docket No. 82 (motion with attached 12 Exhibit 25, filed under seal).1 13 The general presumption is that the public has the right to access judicial filings. See, e.g., 14 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Certain types of documents are 15 exempt from this presumption and have traditionally been kept secret. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 16 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Ninth Circuit “case law has identified two 17 categories of documents that fall in this category: grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in 18 the midst of a pre-indictment investigation.” Id. The presumption of public access can, however, 19 be overcome for documents not traditionally kept secret. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. 20 Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). 21 In determining whether to seal documents, the applicable standard “turns on whether the 22 materials are submitted in conjunction with a dispositive or non-dispositive motion.” Victory 23 Sports & Ent., Inc. v. Pedraza, 2019 WL 2578767, at *1 (D. Nev. 2019). A motion is dispositive 24 when it is “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 25 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The sealing of dispositive motions and related 26 documents is evaluated under a “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A 27 1 Plaintiffs improperly filed the entire motion under seal, rather than just the document at 28 issue. See Local Rule IA 10-5. 1] party must support its motion to seal dispositive filings by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons 2|| supported by specific factual findings.” /d. at 1178. Sealing nondispositive motions requires a 3] “particularized showing” under a “good cause” standard. /d. at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm 4! Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)). 5 Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibit 25 to their motion to compel at Docket No. 81. Docket No. 6] 82 at 3. Plaintiffs seek sealing on the basis that Defendants have designated the relevant documents 7| “Confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order. /d. Once a motion to seal has been filed the basis of a document being designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” the 9| designating party must file a notice within seven days of the filing of the motion to seal explaining 10] why the designated documents should remain sealed. Docket No. 37 at 2. If no such notice is filed, the Court may order the documents unsealed. /d. 12 Defendants failed to file a notice explaining why Exhibit 25 should remain sealed. See 13] Docket. As a result, the Court ordered Defendants to file a notice in response to Plaintiffs’ motion 14] to seal no later than March 29, 2024, demonstrating whether Exhibit 25 was properly filed under 15] seal. Docket No. 89 at 2. The Court warned that “[flailure to comply with this order will result 16] in the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal and immediate unsealing of Exhibit 25.” Jd. On March 17] 29, 2024, Defendants filed a notice and stated that they did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion and did 18] not object to the Court’s order advising that Exhibit 25 would be unsealed. Docket No. 94 at 1-2. 19 Accordingly, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the exhibit is properly filed under 20] seal and Plaintiffs’ motions to seal are DENIED. Docket Nos. 80, 82. The Clerk’s Office is 21 INSTRUCTED to unseal the document at Docket No. 82. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 1, 2024 he. 24 70 aS , = ``. Nancy J. Koppe 25 United States) fagistrate Judge 6 27 28