Elko, Inc. v. Corey Peters

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00015
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ELKO, INC., d/b/a COACH USA (NV), Case No. 3:22-cv-00015-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COREY PETERS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Elko, Inc.’s (“Coach Elko”) emergency motion for 13 reconsideration of the Court’s minute order denying ex parte relief (ECF No. 10),1 14 emergency motion for an expedited briefing schedule (ECF No. 11), and motion to redact 15 and seal (ECF No. 9) exhibits 1, 2, and 3. 16 Reconsideration is appropriate if the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered 17 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 18 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 19 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Coach Elko has failed to provide a valid 20 reason for the Court to reconsider its prior decision to deny ex parte relief. (ECF No. 8.) 21 In the motion for reconsideration, Coach Elko seems to suggest that irreparable harm will 22 result if the Court were to grant the motions for temporary restraining order and 23 preliminary injunction after the effective termination date of a customer contract (January 24 17, 2022). (ECF No. 10 at 2, 5.) However, the Court is persuaded that a shortened briefing 25 26 27 1On January 11, 2022, the Court issued a minute order denying the part of 28 Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that requested ex parte relief because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds that 1 || schedule will remedy this concern. The Court therefore grants Coach Elko’s alternative 2 || request for an expedited briefing and hearing schedule. (ECF No. 11 at 9.) 3 The Court also finds that Coach Elko offered compelling reasons to support its 4 || motion to seal (ECF No. 9), since the need to protect confidential customer information 5 || outweighs the need for public access. See Hologram, USA, Inc. v. Glob. Cash Access, 6 || Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00772-GMN-NJK, 2016 WL 5867821 at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2016) 7 || (granting motion to seal as to documents that contained confidential customer 8 || information). 9 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's emergency motion for reconsideration is 10 || denied. (ECF No. 10.) 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's emergency motion for an expedited briefing and 12 || hearing schedule is granted. (ECF No. 11.) Based on Plaintiff's representation that 13 || Defendants were served with the complaint, summons, and ex parte motions on January 14 || 12, 2022, Defendants will have until and including January 18, 2022, to file their response. 15 || (ECF No. 10 at 8.) Plaintiff will have until and including January 20, 2022, to file a reply. 16 || The video hearing for the motions is scheduled for January 21, 2022. A separate minute 17 || order will be issued to set the hearing. 18 Plaintiff is directed to serve Defendants with a copy of this order and file a notice 19 || that it complied with the Court’s order to serve Defendants by January 14, 2022. 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to seal and redact (ECF No. 9) exhibits 21 || 1, 2, and 3 is granted. 22 DATED THIS 13" Day of January 2022. 23 24 AGRE 25 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28