Kajan Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Kajan Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW Plaintiffs, 5 ORDER v. Zuffa LLC, et al., Defendants.

There are a number of motions to seal on the docket. As explained in further detail below, there is a great deal of confusion regarding what the parties are seeking to do. As a result, the Court will deny these motions without prejudice, order the parties to meet and confer, and allow the parties to file the appropriate motions (detailing the correct exhibit(s) that the respective party wishes to have sealed/redacted).

Plaintiffs filed four motions, all of which were unopposed. These are at ECF Nos. 218, 231, 262, 269.1 As the rationale for sealing/redacting, Plaintiffs relied on the stipulated protective order entered into by the parties. This Court entered an Order (at ECF No. 316) denying these motions without prejudice as that is not a proper basis to seal/redact records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 19 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a showing of good cause). After entering that Order, the Court realized that—rather than responding to the motions above, Defendants filed their own motion (at ECF No. 272) requesting the sealing/redacting of (mostly) the same information sought to be sealed/redacted at ECF Nos. 218, 231, 262, 269. As a result, this Court vacated the order at ECF No. 316.

1 ECF No. 218 is a motion to seal related to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions at ECF No. 217. ECF No. 231 is a motion to seal Plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion for sanctions at ECF No. 217. ECF No. 262 is a motion to seal Plaintiffs’ reply (at ECF No. 261) to its motion to compel (at ECF No. 234).

1 Of note, there are differences between what Plaintiffs seek to seal/redact in their motions at ECF Nos. 218, 231, 262, 269 and what Defendants seek to be sealed/redacted at ECF No. 272.

3 For example, at ECF No. 272 Defendants seek to seal Exhibits 30 and 37-45 to ECF No. 217 (which relates to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF No. 218). But Plaintiff’s corresponding motion (at ECF No. 218) seeks to seal only Exhibits 37-45 (and not Exhibit 30). Moreover, Exhibit 30 is not filed on the docket—at all.

7 Similarly, at ECF No. 272, Defendants seek to seal/redact Exhibits 53-54 to ECF No. 230.

8 But Plaintiff’s corresponding motion (at ECF No. 231) seeks to seal Exhibits 54-57 to ECF No. 230.

10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 In short, it is very confusing to sift through this docket. In addition, any order that could be entered with regard to these pending motions would be equally confusing. As a result, 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 • ECF Nos. 218, 231, 262, 269, and 272 are DENIED without prejudice.

19 • The Clerk of Court maintain ECF Nos. 219, 232, 263, and 270 under seal until 20 further order from the Court.

21 • The parties meet and confer regarding these motions.

22 • The appropriate party file a motion to seal/redact the documents it wishes to have 23 sealed/redacted. The deadline to do so will be January 5, 2026. The Court will 24 unseal all documents after that deadline in the absence of a motion to seal/redact.

25 • The parties file Exhibit 30 to ECF No. 217 and link it to the proper document. LR 26 IC 2-2(d). If it will be filed under seal, the appropriate motion to seal must 27 accompany that entry. ] e Defendants timely file responses to motions to seal to avoid this type of confusion 2 in the future.

3 e ECF No. 286 is DENIED.

5 DATED: December 4, 2025 6 .

LK bea nce □□□ B DA WEKSLER 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]