Leach v. Ingram ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 THEODORE LEACH, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01809-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 55] 9 DENNETT INGRAM, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal and redact. Docket No. 55. Secrecy 12 for judicial filings made in conjunction with non-dispositive matters is warranted upon a showing 13 of good cause. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 I. SEALING OF 2017 POWER OF ATTORNEY 15 The pending motion seeks to seal the 2017 power of attorney on the basis that Plaintiffs 16 designated it as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Docket No. 55 at 2-3. Plaintiffs 17 provide no support for secrecy of that document, see Docket No. 69, and their counsel has 18 elsewhere filed the document on the public docket, see Docket No. 85-1. As a result, the Court 19 DENIES the motion to seal this document. 20 II. REDACTION OF PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION 21 The pending motion seeks to redact a deposition transcript concerning James Kerrigan’s 22 private medical information. Docket No. 55 at 3. Confidential treatment was sought by Kerrigan’s 23 attorney at the time of the deposition. Docket No. 54-2 at 18:21-18:24. Plaintiffs now provide no 24 support for secrecy of that information, see Docket No. 69,1 but United States District Judge 25 Jennifer A. Dorsey has elsewhere decided that Kerrigan’s private medical information must be 26 1 Kerrigan’s current counsel of record filed a response that did not appear to understand 27 the nature of the information at issue, indicating that “[t]his is a case about IP address blocks. Plaintiffs believe there is nothing proprietary, confidential, secret[,] or privileged.” Docket No. 69 28 at 2. The response does not recognize that the subject request concerns medical information. 1} kept secret, see Docket No. 83 at 9. In accordance with Judge Dorsey’s order, the Court GRANTS 2|| the motion for redaction as to Exhibit 24. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 4 The Court issued an order to show cause in relation to the failure to comply with the Court’s 5] orders with respect to the motion to seal. Docket No. 62. Kerrigan’s current counsel of record (James Pengilly) violated several orders, Docket No. 20 at 2; Docket No. 60 at 1-2, and appears to 7| not fully understand the legal or factual issues currently before the Court on Defendants’ motion 8] to seal and to redact, see Docket No. 69; see also Docket No. 67.2 The Court hereby 9| ADMONISHES Attorney Pengilly, who must promptly familiarize himself with the governing 10] rules and case law. Moreover, future failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the 11] imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions imposed on counsel. CONCLUSION 13 The motion to seal and to redact is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk’s 14|| Office is INSTRUCTED to unseal Docket No. 54-1. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to continue sealing Docket No. 54-2. Attorney Pengilly is admonished for the reasons stated above, 16] but the order to show cause is otherwise discharged. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 10, 2024 Nancy J.] ‘oppe 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 ? The Court indicated previously that it would discharge the order to show cause if Attorney Pengilly responded by clearly supporting the confidentiality designations made by Plaintiffs or 25} filing a notice of withdrawal and consent to unsealing. Docket No. 62 at 1. Attorney Pengilly did neither. He filed a document with a caption indicating that Plaintiffs were withdrawing 26] designations and consenting to unsealing, Docket No. 69 at 1, but the body of that document includes no similar representation and, instead, indicates that Plaintiffs did not object to any designations or sealing/redaction requests, id. at 2. Hence, despite now having three opportunities to clearly and meaningfully address the motion to seal and to redact that is predicated on Plaintiffs’ 28]| own confidentiality designations, Attorney Pengilly has still not done so.