Masri v. Blue Martini Las Vegas, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00278
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 MOHAMMAD MASRI, Case No. 2:25-cv-00278-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 30] 9 BLUE MARTINI LAS VEGAS, LLC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 12 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 13 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 14 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 15 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 17 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 18 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 19 (“Notwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 20 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 21 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“The parties are free to enter agreements 22 between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When 23 parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, 24 judges act within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey v. 25 Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). 26

27 1 If designated discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 28 161. ] On April 22, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice a stipulated protective order because no showing was made as to why judicial oversight was required. See Docket No. 25 (citing Fed. 3] R. Civ. P. 29); see also Docket No. 24 (earlier stipulated protective order). The parties have now renewed that stipulated protective order. Docket No. 30. Although the refiled stipulation is much 5] longer than the prior version, the Court continues to fail to discern from the submission why 6] judicial oversight is required for the parties’ agreement on designation of confidential discovery 7| material. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29. 8 Accordingly, the renewed stipulation (Docket No. 30) is DENIED without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 20, 2025 11 BEY. xe 12 nited Sta Aagistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28