Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SMALL v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150330c52 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER (Mtn to Seal-Dkt. #217) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Daniel Small's, Carolyn Small's, William Curtain's, David Cohen's, Lanette Lawrence's and Louise Collard's Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Connection to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objection to the Report and Recommendation and Final Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Special Master Daniel B. Garrie (Dkt. #217). This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant
More

ORDER (Mtn to Seal-Dkt. #217)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Daniel Small's, Carolyn Small's, William Curtain's, David Cohen's, Lanette Lawrence's and Louise Collard's Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Connection to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objection to the Report and Recommendation and Final Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Special Master Daniel B. Garrie (Dkt. #217). This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 and 1-9. The court has considered the Motion and Defendant University Medical Center of Southern Nevada's Notice of Non-Opposition (Dkt. #223).

Plaintiffs seek an order allowing them to file Exhibits I and J in support of their Response (Dkt. #217) to Defendant's Objection (Dkt. #207) to the Special Master's Report of Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. #189). Plaintiff represents that Defendant designated the documents contained in Exhibits I and J as confidential pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Orders (Dkt. ##67, 202), and they are filing this request in accordance with the Protective Orders. Plaintiffs assert that the documents contained in Exhibits I and J are public documents, subject to Nevada's open records law. Plaintiffs believe Defendant's confidentiality designation is improper.

Defendant's Notice of Non-Objection incorporates the arguments set forth in its Motion to Seal All Transcripts and Exhibits to Special Master's Orders (Dkt. #188) and the Reply (Dkt. #213) thereto. Defendant does not address Plaintiffs' contention that the documents included in Exhibits I and J are public documents.

On March 20, 2015, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #243) denying Defendant's Motion to Seal and rejecting the arguments upon which it relies to support the instant Motion to Seal. For the reasons set forth more fully in the court's March 20, 2015, Order,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Dkt. #217) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer