Gypsum Resources LLC v. Clark County

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00850
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC, a Nevada Case No. 2:19-cv-00850-GMN-EJY limited liability company, 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of 8 the State of Nevada; and CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 9 Defendants. 10 CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of 11 the State of Nevada; and CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 12 Counterclaimant, 13 v. 14 GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC, a Nevada 15 limited liability company,

16 Counterdefendant.

17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Temporarily Seal Exhibits to its (1) Reply 19 to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions 20 for Destruction of Evidence, and (2) Reply to Clark County and the Board of County 21 Commissioner’s Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of Sanctions 22 for Destruction of Evidence. ECF No. 63. Despite the contents of the Motion, Defendants filed no 23 response. 24 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming 25 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 26 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 27 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 1 may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone 2 compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 3 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, a party “may not simply rely on the Stipulated Protective Order … to justify 4 sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17- 5 cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) discussing and citing 6 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a 7 showing of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992) 8 (blanket stipulated protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of 9 “good cause”). 10 Plaintiff’s Motion contends the exhibit for which it has sought temporary sealing protection 11 need not be sealed. The Court tends to agree; however, out of an abundance of caution, the Court 12 provides Defendants one additional opportunity to oppose the position taken by Plaintiff in its instant 13 Motion. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Temporarily Seal 15 Exhibits to its (1) Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for 16 Imposition of Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence, and (2) Reply to Clark County and the Board 17 of County Commissioner’s Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing for Imposition of 18 Sanctions for Destruction of Evidence (ECF No. 63) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to the Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition 20 to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiff’s Reply to Clark County 21 and the Clark County Board of County Commissioners’ Opposition to Motion to Convene 22 Evidentiary Hearing (found at ECF No. 65) are temporarily sealed. 23 IT FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have through and including September 23, 2022 24 to oppose Plaintiff’s position that the exhibits identified in the instant Motion need not be sealed. 25 Defendants’ failure to oppose Plaintiff’s position by or before September 23, 2022 will be 26 interpreted by the Court as Defendants’ consent to granting the unsealing of exhibits 4, 7, and 8 to 27 1 || the Reply to Justin Jones’ Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing, and exhibits 2 a1 2 || 3 to Plaintiff's Reply to Clark County and the Clark County Board of County Commissionet 3 || Opposition to Motion to Convene Evidentiary Hearing. 4 DATED this 15th day of September, 2022.

6 . ELAYNAY. YOU: H 7 UNITED.STATES MAGI TE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28