1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Donneesha Venable, Case No. 2:22-cv-01147-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. 8 Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens #13900, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is a Stipulated Protective Order, which the Court approved to facilitate 12 discovery in this case. This order reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public access to 13 judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a 14 motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and 15 County of Honolulu,

(9th Cir. 2006) and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, 16 LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). 17 This order further reminds counsel that: 18 • The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file 19 documents under seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local 20 Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the Court under seal must be accompanied with a 21 concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those documents under seal. See Local 22 Rule IA 10-5(a). 23 • The Court has approved the instant protective order to facilitate discovery 24 exchanges, but there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any 25 specific documents are secret or confidential. The parties have not provided 26 specific facts supported by declarations or concrete examples to establish that a 27 protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other confidential 1 information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable 2 and significant harm. 3 • All motions to seal shall address the standard articulated in Ctr. for Auto Safety 4 and explain why that standard has been met.

. 5 • Specifically, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of meeting 6 the “compelling reasons” standard, as previously articulated in Kamakana. 447

. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only 8 when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, 9 without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety,

1097. (quoting Kamakana,

). “The court must then 11 ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the party who 12 seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety,

1097. 14 • There is an exception to the compelling reasons standard where a party may satisfy 15 the less exacting “good cause” standard for sealed materials attached to a 16 discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case.

“The good cause 17 language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective 18 orders in the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to 19 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 20 burden or expense.’”

(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)). “For good cause to exist, the 21 party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm 22 will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. General Motors,

(9th Cir. 2002). 24 • The labels of “dispositive” and “nondispositive” will not be the determinative 25 factor for deciding which test to apply because the focal consideration is “whether 26 the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto 27 Safety,

. 1 • The fact that the Court has entered the instant stipulated protective order and that a 2 party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order 3 does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See 4 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003); see 5 also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). If 6 the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has 7 designated a document as confidential, the designator shall file (within seven days 8 of the filing of the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient 9 justification for sealing each document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the 10 designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If neither filing is made, the Court may 11 order the document(s) unsealed without further notice. 12 • To the extent any aspect of the stipulated protective order may conflict with this 13 order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is hereby 14 superseded with this order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: January 11, 2023. 17 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27