Bui v. Copart of Arizona, Inc. dba Copart

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 HUONG BUI, Case No. 3:25-CV-00102-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 6 v. [ECF No. 21] 7 COPART OF ARIZONA, INC., et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 The parties have submitted a proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF No. 21.) 11 This proposed order is deficient for multiple reasons. First, the proposed order does not 12 include a provision that provides a specific procedure for filing items identified as 13 “confidential” under the terms of this order in court filings in this lawsuit. Specifically, there 14 is no provision that addresses how documents identified as confidential can be used in 15 this case or that explicitly requires the parties to follow the dictates of the District of 16 Nevada’s LR IA 10-5 nor does it acknowledge the requirements the of the Ninth Circuit 17 concerning the sealing of court records. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 18 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 19 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 20 Next, the proposed order contains a provision that improperly states “[t]he terms 21 of this Protective Order shall survive the final termination of this action. . . and the Court 22 shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective.” (ECF No. 21 at 3.) However, this Court 23 will only retain jurisdiction over stipulated protective orders while a case is pending, and 24 its jurisdiction will cease upon dismissal of the case. 25 Finaly, the proposed order directs the parties to file motions for protective orders 26 in response to disputes over the confidentiality of a document or its use in a transcript or 27 deposition. (Id. at 2.) This is improper because it directs the parties to violate the informal 1| discovery dispute procedure outlined in the Court’s standing order, which clearly states that “[njo discovery motion may be filed until this procedure has been followed and such briefing is ordered by the Court.” (ECF No 10 at 5-6.) 4 For these reasons, the Court DENIES the proposed stipulated protective order. 5 | (ECF No. 21.) The parties have leave to submit a revised stipulated protective order that 6 | comports with LR IA 10-5, the holdings in Kamakana and Center for Auto Safety, includes 7 | a proper jurisdictional provision, and does not violate the Court’s informal discovery 8 | dispute procedure as described above. ' 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 12, 2025. * 11 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |< A 22 1 To assist the parties, the below “sealing” paragraph has been utilized and approved by this Court in other cases: 23 Unless otherwise permitted by statute, rule or prior court order, papers filed 24 with the court under seal shall be accompanied by a contemporaneous motion for leave to file those documents under seal, and shall be filed 25 consistent with the court’s electronic filing procedures in accordance with Local Rule IA 10-5. Notwithstanding any agreement among the parties, the 26 party seeking to file a paper under seal bears the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in court. Kamakana v. o7 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 28