Andres Damian v. American National Property and Casualty Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 ANDRES DAMIAN, 8 Case No. 2:25-cv-00964-NJK Plaintiff, 9 Order v. 10 [Docket No. 18] AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND 11 CASUALTY COMPANY, 12 Defendant. 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ second stipulated protective order, wherein they 14 seek judicial approval of their agreement regarding the designation and handling of material they 15 deem to be confidential. Docket No. 18. 16 The parties previously filed a stipulated protective order. Docket No. 14. The Court denied 17 that stipulation and explained to the parties that “[n]o meaningful showing has been made as to 18 why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ agreement.” Docket No. 15. at 2. The parties 19 have now re-filed a nearly identical document and baldly submit that “defendant is requiring an 20 order before disclosing the documents that would be subject to the Order.” Docket No. 18 at 1. 21 Further, the parties request the Court grant the stipulation so that Plaintiff does not have to file a 22 motion to compel to obtain the documents at issue. Id. 23 As the Court has already stated, discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by 24 the district court.” Sali v. Corona Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 25 Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. 26 v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court 27 proceedings or deadlines, parties may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without 28 obtaining judicial approval. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements 1 may extend to establishing procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential 2 discovery material. See, e.g., Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 3 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) (denying stipulated protective order, while also explaining that, 4 “[n]otwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 5 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 6 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (denying stipulated protective order, while also 7 explaining that “[t]he parties are free to enter agreements between themselves regarding how they 8 will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When parties seek judicial approval of a 9 discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, judges are well within their discretion 10 to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey v. Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at 11 *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). 12 The parties in this case ask for judicial approval of their agreement as to the designation 13 and treatment of documents they deem to be confidential. Once again, the request for a protective 14 order does not provide a factual basis for the Court to determine that any discovery material 15 warrants confidential treatment. Instead, the request indicates that the parties may in the future 16 designate material as confidential “which that party or non-party considers in good faith to contain 17 confidential information.” Docket No. 18 at 1-2. As explained previously, the parties’ agreement 18 for a designation procedure already appears to be enforceable pursuant to Rule 29(b). See Docket 19 No. 15 at 2. The agreement itself acknowledges that “the party seeking to file a paper under seal 20 bears the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in court.” 21 Docket No. 18 at 3. No meaningful showing, or any showing whatsoever other than a party’s 22 preference, has been made as to why judicial oversight in the form of a protective order is 23 warranted. This remains true as to the documents Defendant “require[es] an order before 24 disclosing.” Id. at 1. 25 26 27 1 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. ] Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 18. The parties must diligently conduct discovery. If any party fails to engage in discovery as required by the 3] rules and caselaw, sanctions may issue. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 10, 2025 Nancy J. . x 7 United States.Magist ate Judge

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28