Alerce Biologix PR, LLC, et al. v. Marizel Yukee, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01665
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ALERCE BIOLOGIX PR, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01665-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiffs, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 25] 9 MARIZEL YUKEE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 The parties have come to an agreement as to the designation and handling of material they 12 deem to be confidential, and seek judicial approval of that agreement in the form of a protective 13 order. Docket No. 25. 14 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 15 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 16 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 17 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 18 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 20 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 21 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 22 (denying stipulated protective order, while also explaining that, “[n]otwithstanding the absence of 23 judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain confidentiality of discovery materials”); 24 David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 25 2001) (denying stipulated protective order, while also explaining that “[t]he parties are free to enter 26 agreements between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in 27 28 1| discovery”).! When parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require 2|| judicial approval, judges are well within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, 3] e.g., Comminey v. Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling 4] objection). 5 The parties in this case have reached an agreement as to the designation and treatment of 6|| documents they deem to be confidential. The request for a protective order does not provide a 7| factual basis for the Court to determine that any discovery material warrants confidential treatment. 8|| Instead, the request indicates that the parties may in the future designate material as confidential 9| “after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the 10] documents contain ‘Confidential Information.’” Docket No. 25 at 3. As explained above, the 11] parties’ agreement for a designation procedure already appears to be enforceable pursuant to Rule 12] 29(b). The agreement itself acknowledges that “a Protective Order does not establish that 13] documents meet the standard for sealing set forth in Rule 10-5 of the Local Rules of Practice for 14] the U.S. District Court of Nevada and the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Kamakana.” Id. at 7. No meaningful showing has been made as to why judicial oversight in the form of a protective order 16] is warranted. 17 Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 25. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 5, 2025 A. Nancy J. Koppe 21 United States) lagistrate Judge

23 24 25 26 27), ——_________ ' If discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that 28] point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 161.