1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ADHERENCE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01590-JCM-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 70, 72, 89, 91] 10 CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court are four motions to seal. Docket Nos. 70, 72, 89, 91. 13 The motions seek secrecy as to pleadings and summary judgment motion practice. See id. 14 As such, compelling reasons must be shown to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public 15 access. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).1 16 All four motions were filed on the basis that the opposing party had designated materials 17 as confidential. Docket Nos. 70, 72, 89, 91. In such circumstance, the designating party was 18 required to file (within seven days of the filing of the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration 19 establishing sufficient justification for sealing each document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal 20 of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. Docket No. 61 at 2. No declaration has been filed 21 in an attempt to establish compelling reasons.2 22 1 The papers state incorrectly that the lower good cause standard applies. See, e.g., Docket 23 No. 70 at 2. The law is clear that the higher compelling reasons standard applies to papers filed in relation to a motion for summary judgment and to pleadings. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 24 1179 (motions for summary judgment); Universal Enter. Corp. v. Azure Gaming Am., Inc.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2023) (answer). Of course, even the lower good cause standard 25 requires a factual showing, see, e.g., Henderson v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC,

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 29, 2023), so the result here is the same under either standard given 26 the failure to substantiate in any fashion the request for secrecy. 27 2 The only response that was filed explains that Plaintiff erred in indicating that Defendants had designated material as confidential and, further, that Defendants did not object to unsealing. 28 Docket No. 94. Hence, the only response that was filed favors unsealing. ] Having been presented with no basis on which to find compelling reasons for secrecy, the Court DENIES each of these motions to seal (Docket Nos. 70, 72, 89, 91). The Court 3] INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to unseal the corresponding filings (Docket Nos. 71, 73, 85-88, 92-93). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: August 1, 2025 Nancy a fe 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28