TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC

Opinion

1 2 5 *** 6 TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, 7 Plaintiff, 8 2:17-cv-00346-JCM-VCF vs. ORDER LLC, 10 Defendant. 11

12 Before the court are Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC’s Motion to Redact (ECF No. 138) 13 and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits to Request for Permission to Reply to Motion for Reconsideration 14 (ECF NO. 140). 15 Under LR 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any 16 motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to 17 the granting of the motion. No opposition has been filed and the time to file an opposition has passed. 18 Here, it would seem as though the parties have consented to the granting of the instant motion. 19 The Ninth Circuit has emphasized a strong presumption in favor of access to court records and 20 documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). This general 21 right to public documents, however, is not absolute. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 22 (1978). Local Rule IA 10-5 explains that a party may file a document with the court under seal if 23 accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents under seal. 24 25 1 A party seeking to seal documents in support of a non-dispositive motion must only show “good 2 || cause” exists to seal the documents in question. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 3 |} 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the good cause standard is met and the motions to seal are granted. 4 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC’s Motion to Redact 6 || (ECF No. 138) and Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits to Request for Permission to Reply to Motion for 7 || Reconsideration (ECF NO. 140) are GRANTED. 8 9 DATED this 20th day of August, 2019. Load ato. 10 ul UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25