Razaghi v. Razaghi Development Company, LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 KORY RAZAGHI, an individual;; Case No. 2:18-cv-01622-EJY ATTENTUS LLC, a Nevada limited 5 liability company, 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER 7 v. 8 AHMAD RAZAGHI, an individual; MANUEL MORGAN, an individual; and 9 RAZAGHI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Motion in 13 Limine No. 1. ECF No. 262. After review of the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed the 14 Court ordered supplemental briefing because it was unclear why the documents could not be filed 15 unredacted under seal and redacted on the public record. ECF No. 291. The parties’ supplemental 16 briefing did not respond to this issue, and Plaintiffs seem to believe there is a binary choice between 17 filing under seal and filing redacted on the publicly available docket. Of course, what is clear under 18 the law is that documents with appropriately redacted information will be filed unredacted under 19 seal, while the same document will be filed in their redacted form on the docket available to the 20 public. Defendants, in turn, say only that financial information is generally filed under seal or 21 redacted and, if the Court will allow, Defendants will file the currently sealed documents in a 22 redacted form. 23 The Ninth Circuit holds there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records 24 and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive 25 motions must make a particularized showing of “good cause” to overcome the presumption of public 26 access. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). To the 27 extent any confidential information can be redacted while leaving meaningful information available 1 documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir.2003); see also 2 Vaccine Ctr. LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298, **9–10 (D. Nev. May 14, 3 2013) (discussing redaction requirement). 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Seal Exhibits to 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (ECF No. 262) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the documents identified in ECF No. 262 as filed under 7 seal are and shall remain sealed. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file the same documents in redacted form 9 no later than October 18, 2024. 10 Dated this 7th day of October, 2024. 11 12 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27