IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 1566 (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160915g74
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants failure to respond to the court's Order (ECF No. 2378) denying the Arandell Plaintiffs' Sealed Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2359) 1 without prejudice and instructing the designating party (or parties) to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing as to why certain documents should remain under seal. The Arandell Plaintiffs sought le
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants failure to respond to the court's Order (ECF No. 2378) denying the Arandell Plaintiffs' Sealed Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2359) 1 without prejudice and instructing the designating party (or parties) to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing as to why certain documents should remain under seal. The Arandell Plaintiffs sought lea..
More
ORDER
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants failure to respond to the court's Order (ECF No. 2378) denying the Arandell Plaintiffs' Sealed Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2359)1 without prejudice and instructing the designating party (or parties) to file a memorandum of points and authorities and any supporting declaration or affidavit to make a particularized showing as to why certain documents should remain under seal. The Arandell Plaintiffs sought leave to file under seal because counsel for Defendant CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. designated certain documents as confidential. The documents were referenced as Exhibit C in the Supplemental Declaration of Ryan M. Billings (ECF No. 2358) filed in support of the Arandell Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement Briefing (ECF No. 2334). The court instructed the designating party (or parties) to make a particularized showing on or before May 13, 2016. See Order (ECF No. 2378). However, no response was filed and the deadline to do so has now expired. The parties were cautioned that if they failed to timely comply with the Order, the Clerk of the Court would be directed to unseal the documents to make them available on the public docket.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: the Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2359) and its Exhibit C (ECF No. 2359-1).
FootNotes
1. The court notes that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2355) was erroneously filed under seal when the motion itself did not contain any confidential information—only the attached exhibits presented confidential information. If a motion to seal itself contains confidential information, the moving party may file a redacted motion to seal on the public docket and an unredacted motion under seal with the sealed exhibits. However, this practice is disfavored as litigants should attempt to meet their burden under Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) without specific references to confidential information. For additional direction, the parties should review the December 24, 2015 Order (ECF No. 2257) addressing sealed filings and the CM/ECF filing procedures available on the court's website, or contact the CM/ECF Helpdesk at (702) 464-5555.
Source: Leagle
