Stuart C. Irby Company, LLC v. CommNV, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01889
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Stuart C. Irby Company, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01889-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 CommNV, LLC, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the court is Plaintiff Stuart C. Irby Company, LLC’s Motion to Seal Exhibit One 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 6. The motion seeks to redact a tax identification number, 12 financial account number, and social security number contained in the Exhibit. Id. Defendant 13 Uprise, LLC responded without opposition at ECF No. 12. For the reasons discussed below, the 14 Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on October 9, 2024, including Exhibit One, which detailed an 17 individual’s tax identification number, account number, and social security number without 18 redactions. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now moves to seal this information in accordance with Local 19 Rule IA 10-5. ECF No. 6. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard for Sealing Exhibits 22 When filing documents with the court, parties must either refrain from including or 23 partially redact social security numbers, financial account numbers, and tax identification 24 numbers, leaving only the last four digits if they are included. LR IC 6-1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P 25 5.2(a) (directing parties to include only the last four digits of such personal and financial 26 identification numbers when filing with federal courts). 27 Parties may move for leave to file documents under seal. LR IA 10-5. However, the Ninth 1 || motions. Kamakana vy. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). This 2 || presumption is supported by a history of public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 3 || interest in understanding the judicial process. /d. at 1178. Alternatively, non-dispositive motions, 4 || and their attached records, do not have the same presumption as these documents are often 5 || unrelated or merely tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. /d. at 1179. For non- 6 || dispositive motions, Ninth Circuit courts apply the “good cause” standard. /d. at 1180. The party 7 || moving to seal must make a particularized showing that the need for confidentiality outweighs the 8 || need for public disclosure. See id. The document Plaintiff moves to redact is attached to a 9 || Complaint, which is a non-dispositive pleading. Therefore, the Court will apply the good cause 10 || standard. 11 B. Analysis 12 Federal and local rules require Plaintiff to partially redact social security numbers, tax 13 || identification numbers, and financial account numbers. As a result, the Court finds the request to 14 || seal this information is appropriate and in turn, requests the parties ensure all such information is 15 || redacted throughout Exhibit One and further filings. Moreover, Plaintiff meets the good cause 16 || standard by identifying specific sensitive information. The harm from the improper use of 17 || sensitive personal and financial identification numbers outweighs the interest in public disclosure 18 || as it does not meaningfully contribute to the public’s understanding of this case. 19 |} Tl. CONCLUSION 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibit One of 21 || Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 22 IT IS FURTEHR ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to seal ECF No. 1. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to file a new complaint which 24 || contains a redacted version of Exhibit 1 within 14 days of this Order. 25 DATED this 21* day of January 2025. 26 27 nce ban BRENDA WEKSLER □ 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE