MITCHELL v. CITY OF HENDERSON, 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160323e11
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Refile Under Seal Document #71 (ECF No. 72), filed on March 20, 2016. Plaintiffs argue their proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 71-1) references material that is confidential under the protective order in this case. Although it is unclear whether the parties met and conferred regarding this issue, Plaintiffs' counsel represents that the issues regarding confidentiality came t
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Refile Under Seal Document #71 (ECF No. 72), filed on March 20, 2016. Plaintiffs argue their proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 71-1) references material that is confidential under the protective order in this case. Although it is unclear whether the parties met and conferred regarding this issue, Plaintiffs' counsel represents that the issues regarding confidentiality came to..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Refile Under Seal Document #71 (ECF No. 72), filed on March 20, 2016. Plaintiffs argue their proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 71-1) references material that is confidential under the protective order in this case. Although it is unclear whether the parties met and conferred regarding this issue, Plaintiffs' counsel represents that the issues regarding confidentiality came to his attention because he was contacted by Defendant City of Henderson's counsel, who objected to the filing of the proposed second amended complaint because it references confidential information.
Given that the motion does not specify which portions of the 56-page proposed amended complaint reference confidential material, the Court is unable to evaluate whether sealing is appropriate. The Court therefore will deny the motion without prejudice for the parties to meet and confer regarding which portions of the proposed second amended complaint violate the protective order and to discuss whether redaction of selected portions of the proposed pleading, or in the alternative wholesale revision of the proposed pleading, are appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
