OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SHORTEN TIME, MOTIONS TO SEAL AND MOTION TO FILE SUR-REPLY (Re: Docket Nos. 462, 465, 477, 479, 496)

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed two motions to shorten time and two motions to seal. Defendants have filed a motion to file a sur-reply. The court DENIES the motions to shorten time, GRANTS-IN-PART the motions to seal and GRANTS the motion to file a sur-reply.

I.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3, Plaintiffs seek to shorten time on motions to compel at Docket Nos. 463 and Docket No. 478.1 Plaintiffs must make efforts "to obtain a stipulation to the time change."2 "If the motion is to shorten time for the Court to hear a motion," Plaintiffs must "[d]escribe[] the moving party's compliance with Civil L.R. 37-1(a)."3 Local Rule 37-1(a) provides that the "Court will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues."4 A conference between counsel must be a direct dialogue in person or by telephone.5 A party may be sanctioned for failing to confer as required.6

Plaintiffs contend they have diligently sought discovery, the March 3, 2015 fact discovery cut-off deadline is fast approaching and a hearing date of January 27, 2015 would prejudice Plaintiffs as to any follow-up on the motions to compel.7 Defendants and Counterclaimants oppose because "there is no good cause and [Plaintiffs] ignored the rules"—there was no meet and confer.8 The court agrees with Defendants that the parties must follow the Civil Local Rules and engage in genuine efforts to meet and confer. Plaintiffs' motions to shorten time are DENIED.

II.

Defendants and Counterclaimants move to file a sur-reply in support of Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents because Plaintiffs filed in their reply "new and factually incorrect arguments" not previously raised.9 Having considered the papers and arguments, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion. Defendants' proposed sur-reply and supporting declaration are deemed filed as of the date of this order.

III.

In two motions, Plaintiffs seek to file 13 documents under seal.10 "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"11 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point."12 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.13

However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest."14 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.15 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).16 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"17 that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.18 "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice.19 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,20 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.21

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)."22 "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable."23

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

SO ORDERED.