1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 JAMES PAUL OTTERSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02135-CDS-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order

9 v. [Docket Nos. 37, 44]

10 INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH, INC., et al.,

11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal documents. Docket No. 37; see 13 also Docket No. 39 (sealed documents). It appears that Plaintiff opposes the motion to seal. See 14 Docket No. 42-3 (a “Motion to Oppose Sealing Documents” that appears to have been filed in the 15 wrong case). Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 42.1 Also pending before the Court is 16 Defendant’s second motion to seal. Docket No. 44. A response has not been filed to that motion. 17 The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 18 discussed more fully below, the motions to seal are GRANTED. 19 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 20 County of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to file documents under 21 seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 23 dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support 24 25

26 1 The reply argues that the motion to seal should be granted as unopposed. The Court has discretion to grant a motion as unopposed when a response has not been filed. Local Rule 7-2(d). 27 The Court declines to summarily grant Defendant’s motion to seal as unopposed, however, as the Court is balancing the parties’ interest in privacy against the public’s interest in transparency. The 28 Court will address the motion to seal on its merits. 1 secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.2 The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “‘compelling 2 reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 3 exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use 4 of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 5 trade secrets.’” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc.,

(1978)). 6 In the context of documents filed in conjunction with a motion to enforce settlement, the 7 mere fact that the agreement contains a confidentiality provision is not sufficient to seal all 8 information related to the settlement agreement or settlement discussions. Harper,

3d at 1041; see also Local Rule 16-5 (“In the event of a dispute to enforce a settlement agreement, 10 the court may order the disclosure of confidential information”). Greater transparency is required 11 given that the parties have turned to federal court to resolve their dispute as to the settlement.

F. Supp. 3d at 1041. Nonetheless, courts are also mindful of the policy interests in 13 allowing settlement discussions to remain confidential. See

In light of the competing interests, 14 this Court has taken a middle approach “whereby the terms of settlement pertinent to analyzing 15 the motion to enforce will not be kept secret, but the terms that are irrelevant to the motion to 16 enforce will be kept secret.”

at 1042 (citing United States ex rel. Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 2021

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2021) and Pizza v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., Inc.,

1383142, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)). 19 Defendant’s motions to seal seeks secrecy for settlement communications, as well as a draft 20 settlement agreement. See Docket Nos. 39, 45. Confidentiality is a material term of the settlement. 21 Moreover, there is no dispute in this case as to any of the terms of settlement. The only issue 22 before the Court is whether a binding agreement was reached. The information necessary to 23 address that issue is already available in the public record. See Docket No. 36-2. Hence, there are 24 compelling reasons to allow sealing that are not outweighed by the public’s interest in seeing the 25 underlying information. 26

27 2 For purposes of this analysis, a motion to enforce settlement is considered to be dispositive in nature. E.g., Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC,

, 1040 & n.6 (D.

). 1 Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to seal are GRANTED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 18, 2022 he. , fo — _ Nancy J:.Koppe, 5 United Statés Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28