Kajan Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01189
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Kajan Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v.

7 Zuffa LLC, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal their response (at ECF No. 283) to 11 Defendants’ motion to seal (at ECF No. 272). This motion is unopposed. For the reasons 12 discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions to seal without prejudice. 13 I. DISCUSSION 14 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 15 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 16 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 17 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 18 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 19 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 20 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (alteration and internal 21 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 22 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 23 documents as well if the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. 24 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 “[A] different standard applies to ‘private materials unearthed during discovery,’ as such 26 documents are not part of the judicial record.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 27 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). Under Rule 26(c), a court may enter a 1 undue burden or expense.” “The relevant standard for purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether good 2 cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs 3 for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotation omitted). 4 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good cause 5 standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion. Id. 6 “Nondispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause 7 of action,’ and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply 8 with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). It is 9 within the court’s discretion whether to seal documents. Id. at 679. 10 In their motion, Plaintiffs explain that their response discusses exhibits that have been 11 designated as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs provide no other 12 reason to seal the response. 13 Stipulated protective orders alone do not justify sealing court records. Kamakana, 447 14 F.3d at 1183; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 15 2003) (noting that reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a showing 16 of good cause). Stipulated protective orders “often contain provisions that purport to put the entire 17 litigation under lock and key without regard to the actual requirements of Rule 26(c).” 18 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Because judges sign off on these protective orders without making 19 individualized findings, they do not provide a finding that any specific documents are secret or 20 confidential to overcome the presumption of public access. Id.; see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 21 Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475–76 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that blanket stipulated protective 22 orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of “good cause”). 23 As a result, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is denied without prejudice. If either party wishes to 24 maintain the information in question under seal, the appropriate party must file a new motion 25 advancing arguments in support of the need to seal this response information under the applicable 26 standard. Such motion will be due no later than January 5, 2026. In the interim, this Court will 27 maintain ECF Nos. 285 under seal. If no such motion is filed by the deadline provided, the Court 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 284) is 3 || DENIED without prejudice. However, the Clerk’s Office is directed to maintain ECF No. 285 4 || under seal until further orders from the Court. 5 6 DATED: December 4, 2025 7

BRENDA WEKSLER 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28