Order

[Docket No. 173]

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to seal that, like its predecessors, is improper for numerous reasons. Docket No. 173.

As an initial matter, the motion to seal is itself filed under seal. But see Old Republic Ins. Co. v. City Plan Dev., Inc., 2017 WL 5076515, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2017); In re Western States Wholesale Nat'l Gas Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 4944086, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 2016). Plaintiffs state without elaboration that the motion to seal is filed under seal because they decided to quote therein from the documents for which sealing is being sought. Docket No. 173 at 11 n.3.1 Motions to seal should not ordinarily require explicit discussion of the information for which secrecy is sought, and the instant motion appears almost entirely targeted at impugning the opposing party rather than discussing whether good cause exists for sealing. See, e.g., Docket No. 173 at 3 ("Defendants Intentionally Withheld This Evidence Knowing It Was Relevant In Order To Maintain Improper Objections to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests" (emphasis in original)). A motion to seal is a vehicle for addressing the Ninth Circuit standards for sealing and explaining the movant's position on whether those standards are met; it is not a vehicle to raise other arguments divorced from that inquiry.2 The Court hereby STRIKES the motion to seal itself because it is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In addition, several of the exhibits for which sealing is sought are plainly not sealable. By way of example, Plaintiffs attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion to seal a publicly-available transcript of a hearing that was itself open to the public. Compare Docket No. 173-1 (filed under seal) with Docket No. 80. It is not clear why Plaintiffs are seeking to seal a document that is already in the public domain. Similarly, another exhibit appears to be publicly-available printouts of websites. See Docket No. 173-9.

Lastly, it is unclear which documents Defendants believe warrant secrecy. Defendants' declaration in support of sealing request provides argument as to only a single page of one exhibit. Docket No. 173-10 (identifying reasons for redacting SEIU 13239).3 Hence, it is unclear whether Defendants consent to the unsealing of the ten exhibits at issue, except for the one page identified in that declaration.

For the time-being, the Court will allow the exhibits thereto to remain under seal. Plaintiffs shall immediately serve Defendants with Docket No. 173 and the ten exhibits thereto.4 Plaintiffs shall file a proof of service to that effect by September 24, 2018. See, e.g., Local Rule IA 10-5(c). To the extent any party believes any exhibit or portion thereof warrants secrecy, that party shall file a supplement that (1) identifies with particularity the information for which secrecy is appropriate, (2) identifies redactions to the extent feasible, and (3) explains why good cause exists for each sealing/redaction request being made. Such supplements shall be limited to the sealing issues currently before the Court, and shall be filed no later than September 28, 2018.5 Any such supplement must be complete in and of itself, and must provide a basis for each sealing/redaction request being made.

The Court has already provided ample guidance to the parties on what should be a routine procedural matter of seeking to file documents under seal. See, e.g., Docket No. 164. The Court will not continue to indulge plainly improper filings moving forward and, to the extent they are unable to understand how to follow the Court's basic procedures, counsel need to obtain the training and/or professional guidance to competently practice in this Court.

In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.