HOLOGRAM USA, INC. v. PULSE EVOLUTION CORPORATION, 2:14-cv-00772-GMN-NJK (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160404631
Visitors: 32
Filed: Mar. 31, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Docket No. 355. Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal portions of their motion to compel and two exhibits to Scott Malzahn's declaration in support of that motion. Docket No. 355 at 1; see also Docket No. 356 (motion to compel). Plaintiffs represent that they suspect Defendants will designate these documents as confidential pursuant to a stipulated protectiv
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Docket No. 355. Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal portions of their motion to compel and two exhibits to Scott Malzahn's declaration in support of that motion. Docket No. 355 at 1; see also Docket No. 356 (motion to compel). Plaintiffs represent that they suspect Defendants will designate these documents as confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Docket No. 355. Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal portions of their motion to compel and two exhibits to Scott Malzahn's declaration in support of that motion. Docket No. 355 at 1; see also Docket No. 356 (motion to compel).
Plaintiffs represent that they suspect Defendants will designate these documents as confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective order entered in this case. Docket No. 335 at 1. Pursuant to the procedures outlined at Docket No. 139, Plaintiffs were required to notify Defendants at least seven days prior to filing these documents and, should Defendants believe good cause exists to file the above-referenced documents under seal, they were required to provide a declaration in support of the motion to seal for Plaintiffs to file. Id. at 2-3. Additionally, Plaintiffs may not file the entire document under seal; rather, they must file it publicly with the appropriate redactions. While Plaintiffs did not follow the procedures set forth by the Court, the Court gives Plaintiffs one last opportunity to comply with the Court's order. The subject document will remain sealed for the time being.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal, Docket No. 355, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs shall CONFER with Defendants, no later than April 6, 2016, regarding the confidentiality designation of the subject documents.
3. To the extent a motion to seal remains necessary, no later than April 13, 2016, Plaintiffs must file their motion to seal with the appropriate declarations, which must address the proper standards. To the extent the parties do not believe that sealing is necessary, Plaintiffs shall file the motion to compel and its exhibits on the public docket, no later than April 13, 2016.
4. Plaintiffs shall file a proposed redacted version of the motion to compel no later than April 4, 2016. Minshew v. Donley, 911 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1074 (D. Nev. 2012) (requiring party seeking to seal only portions of a document to provide a proposed redacted copy of the document).
5. The document at Docket No. 356 shall remain under seal pending further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
