PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. DELANEY, 2:11-CV-0678-LRH-PAL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120612950
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits in support of their opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. #24 1 ). Doc. #25. A party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order or are also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 , 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits in support of their opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. #24 1 ). Doc. #25. A party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order or are also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 , 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate c..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court is defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits in support of their opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. #241). Doc. #25.
A party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order or are also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Here, the court finds that defendants have put forth compelling reasons for sealing the requested documents. Specifically, defendants contend that these documents contain the federal examination of a bank controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company which is prohibited from public disclosure pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 309.6(a). Thus, defendants have met their burden and the court shall grant the motion accordingly.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to seal (Doc. #25) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Refers to the court's docket number.
Source: Leagle
