Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center

D. Nevada

Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center

DecidedMay 2, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00579

StatusUnknown

This text of Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center (Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Diane Boware, 2:23-cv-00579-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s),

5 vs. Order Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37 6 Levi Strauss Distribution Center, et al., Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38) Setting Status Hearing 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are defendant Levi Strauss & Co.’s (“defendant”) Motion for Status 9 Conference (ECF No. 37) and Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38). The Court GRANTS 10 defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) and Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38). 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. Motion for Status Conference 13 Defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) states that defendant has complied with 14 the terms of parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Adopting the Report & 15 Recommendation and Granting Defendant Levi Strauss’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (“Order 16 Enforcing Settlement”) (ECF No. 34), but that plaintiff refuses to comply with either and has ceased 17 communications with defendant. For good cause shown, and because the Motion is unopposed, the 18 Court grants defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37). 19 II. Motion to Seal Documents 20 Defendant requests that it be permitted to “file the communication with plaintiff, Exhibit A-1, 21 attached to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, under seal.” ECF No. 38 at 2: 26-28. 22 Exhibit A-1 consists of the transmittal letter to plaintiff, the Settlement Agreement, the December 28, 23 2023, Order enforcing settlement, and the proposed Order to Dismiss under seal. ECF No. 38 at 2. The 24 Court grants defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 38). 25 // 1 a. Legal Standard 2 Unless a particular court record is traditionally kept secret, there is a strong presumption in favor 3 of public access to judicial filings and documents. See Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 4 897 & n.7, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 5 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 6 overcoming the strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F. 7 3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The 8 party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 9 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 10 the judicial process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The 11 Court must then balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal the records. 12 Id. 13 The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to the presumption of access, specifically, the 14 Ninth Circuit has held that the “public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non- 15 dispositive motions because those documents are often “unrelated, or tangentially related, to the 16 underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 17 held that when a court grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it has 18 already determined that good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public 19 by balancing needs for discovery against need for confidentiality. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. In short, good 20 cause suffices to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive 21 motions. Id. 22 b. Analysis 23 The information, communications, at issue includes “detailed information about the terms of the 24 settlement, the terms and scope of the formal Settlement Agreement and the need for certain documents 25 to be filed to dismiss the case and related matters.” ECF No. 38 at 3:16-19. The Court has reviewed the 1 Motion to Seal (ECF No. 38) and the Exhibit (Exhibit A-1, ECF No. 39) and finds that they contain 2 confidential information, which is traditionally kept secret for policy reasons, which warrants keeping 3 them sealed. Furthermore, the Court finds that good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal the 4 information that overcome the presumption of public access and that the documents cannot be easily 5 redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public. See United States v. Contra 6 Costa Cty. Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90,92 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that a principle underlying Rule 408 is 7 the “promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes. By preventing 8 settlement negotiations from being admitted as evidence, full and open disclosure is encouraged, thereby 9 furthering the policy toward settlement.”); see also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (holding that when a court 10 grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it has already determined that good 11 cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing needs for 12 discovery against need for confidentiality). 13 III. Order to Show Cause 14 The Court orders plaintiff to file a brief showing cause why the action should not be dismissed 15 with prejudice with no further action required from defendant to demonstrate that defendant complied 16 with the parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Enforcing Settlement. Plaintiff must file 17 her brief showing cause by May 20, 2024. 18 19 ACCORDINGLY, 20 IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. The Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. 22 2. The Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. 23 3. The parties shall appear for an in-person status hearing on June 3, 2024, at 2:00pm in 24 Courtroom 3C. 25 1 4. Plaintiff MUST file a brief by May 20, 2024, showing cause as to why the action should not be 2 dismissed with prejudice with no further action from the defendant to demonstrate that the 3 defendant complied with parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Enforcing 4 Settlement. 5 6 DATED this 2"¢ day of May 2024. L 4B _ 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. J? JK

wesc Hon. Maximiliayio D. £ouvillier IIT 10 United States Magisirate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Diane Boware, 2:23-cv-00579-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s),

5 vs. Order Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37 6 Levi Strauss Distribution Center, et al., Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38) Setting Status Hearing 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are defendant Levi Strauss & Co.’s (“defendant”) Motion for Status 9 Conference (ECF No. 37) and Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38). The Court GRANTS 10 defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) and Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38). 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. Motion for Status Conference 13 Defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) states that defendant has complied with 14 the terms of parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Adopting the Report & 15 Recommendation and Granting Defendant Levi Strauss’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (“Order 16 Enforcing Settlement”) (ECF No. 34), but that plaintiff refuses to comply with either and has ceased 17 communications with defendant. For good cause shown, and because the Motion is unopposed, the 18 Court grants defendant’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37). 19 II. Motion to Seal Documents 20 Defendant requests that it be permitted to “file the communication with plaintiff, Exhibit A-1, 21 attached to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, under seal.” ECF No. 38 at 2: 26-28. 22 Exhibit A-1 consists of the transmittal letter to plaintiff, the Settlement Agreement, the December 28, 23 2023, Order enforcing settlement, and the proposed Order to Dismiss under seal. ECF No. 38 at 2. The 24 Court grants defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 38). 25 // 1 a. Legal Standard 2 Unless a particular court record is traditionally kept secret, there is a strong presumption in favor 3 of public access to judicial filings and documents. See Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 4 897 & n.7, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 5 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 6 overcoming the strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F. 7 3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The 8 party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 9 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 10 the judicial process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The 11 Court must then balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal the records. 12 Id. 13 The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to the presumption of access, specifically, the 14 Ninth Circuit has held that the “public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non- 15 dispositive motions because those documents are often “unrelated, or tangentially related, to the 16 underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 17 held that when a court grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it has 18 already determined that good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public 19 by balancing needs for discovery against need for confidentiality. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. In short, good 20 cause suffices to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive 21 motions. Id. 22 b. Analysis 23 The information, communications, at issue includes “detailed information about the terms of the 24 settlement, the terms and scope of the formal Settlement Agreement and the need for certain documents 25 to be filed to dismiss the case and related matters.” ECF No. 38 at 3:16-19. The Court has reviewed the 1 Motion to Seal (ECF No. 38) and the Exhibit (Exhibit A-1, ECF No. 39) and finds that they contain 2 confidential information, which is traditionally kept secret for policy reasons, which warrants keeping 3 them sealed. Furthermore, the Court finds that good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal the 4 information that overcome the presumption of public access and that the documents cannot be easily 5 redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public. See United States v. Contra 6 Costa Cty. Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90,92 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that a principle underlying Rule 408 is 7 the “promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes. By preventing 8 settlement negotiations from being admitted as evidence, full and open disclosure is encouraged, thereby 9 furthering the policy toward settlement.”); see also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (holding that when a court 10 grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it has already determined that good 11 cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing needs for 12 discovery against need for confidentiality). 13 III. Order to Show Cause 14 The Court orders plaintiff to file a brief showing cause why the action should not be dismissed 15 with prejudice with no further action required from defendant to demonstrate that defendant complied 16 with the parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Enforcing Settlement. Plaintiff must file 17 her brief showing cause by May 20, 2024. 18 19 ACCORDINGLY, 20 IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. The Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. 22 2. The Motion to Seal Documents (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. 23 3. The parties shall appear for an in-person status hearing on June 3, 2024, at 2:00pm in 24 Courtroom 3C. 25 1 4. Plaintiff MUST file a brief by May 20, 2024, showing cause as to why the action should not be 2 dismissed with prejudice with no further action from the defendant to demonstrate that the 3 defendant complied with parties’ settlement agreement and the Court’s Order Enforcing 4 Settlement. 5 6 DATED this 2"¢ day of May 2024. L 4B _ 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. J? JK

wesc Hon. Maximiliayio D. £ouvillier IIT 10 United States Magisirate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu

447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Boware v. Levi Strauss Distribution Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boware-v-levi-strauss-distribution-center-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack