Myrick v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 NYE MYRICK, Case No. 2:24-cv-00102-JAD-EJY 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER 6 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 7 et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 72), in which Plaintiff seeks 11 an order sealing his renewed Motion for Spoliation (ECF No. 73) and attached exhibits.1 The Court 12 has considered the Motion and finds as follows. 13 I. Discussion 14 Courts have recognized a general right of the public to inspect and copy public records and 15 documents, including judicial records and documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 16 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). The strong presumption in favor of 17 public access must be overcome by a party seeking to seal a judicial record. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. 18 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). 19 Under this standard, a party must demonstrate “a compelling reason and [articulate] a factual basis . 20 . . without relying on hypothesis or conjecture” to justify sealing court records. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 21 809 F.3d at 1096–97. The “compelling reason” standard applies to any motion “more than 22 tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1100–01. What constitutes a compelling reason 23 is within the discretion of the District Court. Id. at 1097. 24 In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks to seal his renewed Motion for Sanctions and attached 25 exhibits, which consist of two expert reports and Defendant’s supplemental discovery responses. 26 ECF No. 72 at 1. Plaintiff does not contend that any of these exhibits are confidential or have been 27 1 marked as such, but instead represents that the exhibits refer to and/or are based on surveillance 2 video footage that Defendant designated as confidential under a confidentiality agreement. Id. at 2- 3 3. Therefore, while Plaintiff states she disagrees that the attached exhibits actually contain 4 confidential material, she seeks leave to file them under seal to avoid Defendant filing a 5 countermotion for sanctions. Id. 6 This issue should have been addressed before the Motion was filed. It is not proper to ask 7 the Court to provisionally seal a document based on a potential argument that an opposing party may 8 eventually assert. Rather, it is the moving party that bears the burden of overcoming the presumption 9 in favor of public access and disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, 10 the marking of a document as confidential does not, without more, justify filing the document under 11 seal. Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at 12 *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th 13 Cir. 2003)). 14 The parties must meet and confer regarding which, if any, portions of Plaintiff’s Motion and 15 attached exhibits contain information that warrants sealing. If agreement is reached, Plaintiff must 16 file a joint memorandum or stipulation including sufficient reasons establishing compelling reason 17 to seal. If the redacted version of the Motion for Spoliation is modified by agreement, the parties 18 should file a revised redacted Motion together with a request to withdraw the previously filed Motion 19 for Sanctions. If agreement cannot be reached, Plaintiff must work with opposing counsel to submit 20 a single memorandum explaining each party’s position on the basis for sealing the information at 21 issue. 22 II. Order 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 72) is 24 DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sealed version of the renewed Motion for Spoliation 26 (ECF No. 73) and attached exhibits are and shall remain provisionally under seal. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer regarding which portions 1 || seal. If an agreement is reached, Plaintiff must refile the documents, with only the agreed upx 2 || portions of the documents redacted, along with a stipulation to seal. If the redacted version of tl 3 || Motion for Spoliation is modified by agreement, the parties should file a revised redacted Motic 4 || together with a request to withdraw the previously filed Motion for Spoliation. If agreement cann 5 || be reached, the parties must file a memorandum with the Court in which Defendant explains wl 6 || sealing is justified. 8 DATED this 26th day of June, 2025. 10 \ M1 FLAVA T POUCA PRONG

UNI Ep STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28