ORDER

(Mots. to Seal — ECF Nos. 444, 447, 457, 465, 469)

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the parties' Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 444, 447, 457, 465, 469). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice.

The Motions seek leave to file under seal certain documents and exhibits referenced in the filings related to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel (ECF No. 443). See Pls.' Sealed Mot. Exhibits (ECF No. 445)2 (attaching Pls.' Unredacted Mot. (ECF No. 445-1); Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 445-2), Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 445-3), Exhibit 4 (ECF No. 445-4), Exhibit 5 (ECF No. 445-5), Exhibit 7 (ECF No. 445-6), Exhibit 14 (ECF No. 445-7), Exhibit 15 (ECF No. 445-8), Exhibit 16 (ECF No. 445-9), Exhibit 17 (ECF No. 445-10), Exhibit 18 (ECF No. 445-11), Exhibit 19 (ECF No. 445-12), Exhibit 20 (ECF No. 445-13)); Def.'s Sealed Response Exhibits (ECF No. 458) (attaching Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 458-1); Exhibit 16 (ECF No. 458-2)); Pls.' Sealed Reply Exhibits (ECF No. 466) (attaching Exhibit 6 (ECF No. 466-1); Exhibit 7 (ECF No. 466-2); Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 466-3); Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 466-4)). Plaintiffs seek leave to file the documents under seal based on their obligation pursuant to the Amended Protective Order (ECF No. 2017) entered in this case governing confidentiality. Plaintiffs' motions express no opinion regarding the confidentiality of the documents. Defendant Zuffa, LLC's motions provide a particularized showing why the unredacted Motion to Compel along with its Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20; Response Exhibits 2 and 16; and Reply Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 should remain under seal. Zuffa took no position on whether Exhibit 17 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel may be properly filed under seal. Exhibit 17 is an email exchange between the parties regarding scheduling a teleconference.

Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the court finds that the parties have met their burden of establishing good cause for all but one of the documents to remain sealed. The parties have narrowly tailored their sealing requests to the extent possible by filing redacted versions of the underlying motion as well as Exhibits 2 and 5. See Pls.' Redacted Mot. (ECF No. 443); Redacted Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 447-1); Redacted Exhibit 5 (ECF No. 447-2). However, no party offered a declaration in support of sealing the emails in Exhibit 17 (ECF No. 445-10), and a blanket protective order is not sufficient to permit the filing of documents under seal. Moreover, the emails do not appear to contain confidential information.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

2. The following documents shall remain under seal:

3. The Clerk of the Court shall UNSEAL Exhibit 17 (ECF No. 445-10) to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.