Goldberger v. SmartCareos, LLC, 2:16-cv-01884-RFB-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180314e24
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 52) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal. Docket No. 52. Defendants submit that certain portions of the exhibit at Docket No. 50-3 should be redacted to maintain the confidentiality of settlement information. Id at 3. Defendants' exhibit includes a statement of the settlement amount and other financial information related to the settlement. Docket No. 51-3 at 3. In compliance with the Court's Local Rules, Defendants
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 52) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal. Docket No. 52. Defendants submit that certain portions of the exhibit at Docket No. 50-3 should be redacted to maintain the confidentiality of settlement information. Id at 3. Defendants' exhibit includes a statement of the settlement amount and other financial information related to the settlement. Docket No. 51-3 at 3. In compliance with the Court's Local Rules, Defendants f..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 52)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal. Docket No. 52. Defendants submit that certain portions of the exhibit at Docket No. 50-3 should be redacted to maintain the confidentiality of settlement information. Id at 3. Defendants' exhibit includes a statement of the settlement amount and other financial information related to the settlement. Docket No. 51-3 at 3. In compliance with the Court's Local Rules, Defendants filed an unredacted version of the exhibit under seal. Docket No. 51.
Parties "who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that `compelling reasons' support secrecy." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Those compelling reasons must outweigh the competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79. In this case, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support the requested redactions. Accordingly, the motion to seal is GRANTED. Docket No. 52. The exhibit at Docket No. 50-3 shall remain redacted. The filing at Docket No. 51 shall remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
