Barnum v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 2:16-cv-02866-RFB-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180822d38
Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: Order [Docket No. 125] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to seal and/or redact certain exhibits filed in conjunction with a motion to compel and for sanctions. Docket No. 125. A hearing is set for August 22, 2018. The Court does not require a hearing on the two FIS Card exhibits at issue. 1 With respect to Exhibit J, FIS Card indicates that the document has already been filed publicly and sealing is not sought. Docket No. 164 at 1 n.1. 2
Summary: Order [Docket No. 125] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to seal and/or redact certain exhibits filed in conjunction with a motion to compel and for sanctions. Docket No. 125. A hearing is set for August 22, 2018. The Court does not require a hearing on the two FIS Card exhibits at issue. 1 With respect to Exhibit J, FIS Card indicates that the document has already been filed publicly and sealing is not sought. Docket No. 164 at 1 n.1. 2 W..
More
Order
[Docket No. 125]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to seal and/or redact certain exhibits filed in conjunction with a motion to compel and for sanctions. Docket No. 125. A hearing is set for August 22, 2018. The Court does not require a hearing on the two FIS Card exhibits at issue.1
With respect to Exhibit J, FIS Card indicates that the document has already been filed publicly and sealing is not sought. Docket No. 164 at 1 n.1.2 With respect to Exhibit I, that compact disc includes batch reports with extensive information. FIS Card represents it maintains such information as confidential and that disclosure of that information would enable competitors to reverse engineer its proprietary information. See Docket No. 164 at 4. The Court finds such showing satisfies the applicable good cause standard. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED as moot with respect to Exhibit J and the motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibit I.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The hearing will proceed as scheduled with respect to the remaining exhibits.
2. The publicly-filed version of this document includes redaction to Plaintiff's home addresses. Docket No. 96-32. Such redactions are proper without a court order. See Local Rule IC 6-1(a)(5).
Source: Leagle
