Manley v. MGM Resorts International ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DWIGHT MANLEY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01906-MMD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER 7 MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL; MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, 8 Defendants. 9 MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada 10 limited liability company, 11 Counterclaimant, 12 v. 13 DWIGHT MANLEY, an individual, 14 Counter-Defendant. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal its Emergency Motion for Protective 17 Order and Exhibits 4-5 thereto and redact portions of Exhibits 1-3. ECF No. 123. Defendants seek 18 to seal the unredacted version of its Emergency Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 122) as well 19 as Exhibits 4 and 5 thereto because these filings contain confidential information. Exhibits 4 and 5 20 are prior incident reports to which Defendants have designated as “Highly Confidential” as they are 21 unrelated to Plaintiff’s alleged incident and contain names and other personal identifying 22 information of former patrons. In addition, Defendants seek to redact portions of Exhibits 1 through 23 3 in support of the Emergency Motion as these exhibits contain emails between counsel and 24 deposition notices containing names of the former patrons. 25 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet its burden of overcoming 26 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 27 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishing those who seek to maintain 1 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (A party asserting good 2 cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific 3 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”). The mere fact that production of 4 records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not 5 alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. Here, the personal information 6 of third parties are typically sealed. Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. Motors 7 LLC, 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (Courts … routinely granted motions to 8 seal the personally identifiable information of third party individuals). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 123) is 10 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Protective Order and 12 Exhibits thereto (ECF No. 122) are and shall remain sealed. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must refile its Emergency Motion for 14 Protective Order (ECF No. 122) and Exhibits 1 through 3 on the public record redacting only 15 references to and quotations from the prior incident reports, including names of the former patrons. 16 DATED this 20th day of November, 2024. 17 18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27