Mitchell v. Reddington Structural Solutions, LLC

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 DANIEL MITCHELL, Case No. 2:25-cv-00170-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 REDDINGTON STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 40), in which Plaintiff seeks 11 an order sealing1 Exhibit E of Plaintiff’s Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 12 Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 31). The Court has considered the Motion and finds as 13 follows. 14 I. Discussion 15 Courts recognize a general right of the public to inspect and copy public records and 16 documents, including judicial records and documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 17 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). The strong presumption in favor of 18 public access must be overcome by a party seeking to seal a judicial record. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. 19 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). 20 Under this standard, a party must demonstrate “a compelling reason and [articulate] a factual basis 21 ... without relying on hypothesis or conjecture” to justify sealing court records. Id. at 1096-97. The 22 “compelling reason” standard applies to any motion “more than tangentially related to the merits of 23 a case.” Id. at 1100-01. What constitutes a compelling reason is within the discretion of the District 24 Court. Id. at 1097. 25 26

1 Plaintiff actually requests an order “sealing/redacting” the specified Exhibit. ECF No. 40 at 5. Sealing and 27 redacting are not interchangeable terms (see LR IA 10-5; LR IC 6-1) and, in fact, it is the parties who bear the obligation 1 In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibit E to his Motion for a Temporary 2 Restraining Order. Exhibit E consists of a list of customers of Kolay Flooring International, a 3 flooring company owned by Plaintiff. ECF No. 31 at 18-106. Plaintiff argues that the presumption 4 in favor of public access is outweighed in this case because the customer list at issue is “generally 5 not disclosed to the public.” ECF No. 40 at 4 (citing Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000)). 6 This conclusory assertion does not establish the compelling reasons necessary to rebut the 7 presumption in favor of public access. Though Plaintiff supports his position by citing to Frantz, 8 that case took care to emphasize that “not every customer and pricing list will be protected as a trade 9 secret.” Frantz, 999 P.2d at 359. The Nevada Supreme Court distinguished the list at issue in Frantz 10 by noting that “there was testimony … that it was extremely confidential, [and] its secrecy was 11 guarded.” Id. No such representation is offered here, and a review of the exhibit shows the list in 12 question does not include contact information or any information other than the names of various 13 businesses and individuals. 14 Beyond these shortcomings, the Court notes there are procedural errors with Plaintiff’s 15 Motion. First, although the Local Rules specify that “papers filed with the court under seal must be 16 accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents under seal,” LR IA 10-5(a), Plaintiff 17 waited nearly a month after filing Exhibit E under seal before moving for leave to do so. Second, 18 although Plaintiff’s Motion acknowledges that “a request to seal record must be ‘narrowly tailored’ 19 to remove from public access only that material warranting protection,” ECF No. 40 at 3 (quoting 20 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3948 Applecrest, Case No. 2:17-cv-01360-APG- 21 VCF, 2020 WL 2311560, at 2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2020)), Plaintiff filed the entire appendix of exhibits 22 under seal, not just the exhibit he seeks to seal. ECF No. 31. 23 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff must refile 24 his Motion and the appendix of exhibits. The appendix must be refiled on the publicly available 25 docket with all exhibits, except Exhibit E, attached. In the refiled appendix, Exhibit E must be 26 represented by a cover sheet stating “Filed Under Seal.” Plaintiff must also refile only Exhibit E 27 under seal and, at the same time, file a Motion to Seal, not under seal, supporting the sealing of 1 II. Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 40) is 3 DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to strike ECF No. (31) from 5 the docket. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than June 24, 2025, and all on the same day, 7 Plaintiff must refile: 8 1. A Motion to Seal Exhibit E providing justification for the sealing of this exhibit; 9 2. Exhibit E under seal; and 10 3. The Appendix of Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 11 unsealed on the public docket. The Appendix must include Exhibits A-D and F, and a cover sheet 12 for Exhibit E stating “Filed Under Seal.” 13 Dated this 10th day of June, 2025. 14

15 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27