U.S. Bank National Association v. North American Title Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00424
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00424-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 37) in which Plaintiff seeks to seal 11 three Exhibits to its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) and all references to those 12 Exhibits in that Motion. 13 The party bringing a motion to seal must meet its burden of overcoming the strong 14 presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. 15 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the 16 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 17 “compelling reasons” support secrecy). The mere fact that production of records may lead to a 18 party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the 19 court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 20 (9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons require a demonstration of something more such as when court 21 files have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, 22 promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner 23 Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Further, a party “may not simply rely on the Stipulated 24 Protective Order … to justify sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar 25 Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 26 2019), citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not 27 make a showing of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th 1 || Cir. 1992) (blanket stipulated protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include 2 || finding of “good cause”). 3 The Court reviewed the Motion to Seal as well as the Exhibits sought to be sealed and Exhit 4 || Q that is redacted. The Court notes Exhibits O and P are not redacted. They are completely block 5 || out, which represents sealing of the entirety of the document. When filing a document entirely und 6 || seal, the party should include a placeholder for that document on the public record stating the Exhit 7 || 1s filed under seal. Further, the title of Exhibit Q should not be redacted because the name of tl 8 || deponent is on the second page of the Exhibit. Further, the title of a document sought to be seal 9 || should ordinarily be available to the public. 10 With respect to Exhibits O and P (which will impact what is redacted from the contents- 11 |} not the title—of Exhibit Q), Plaintiff provides no reason for the sealing request other than tl 12 || Protective Order, which is insufficient. Indeed, Exhibit O contains a confidentiality statement, whi 13 |} Exhibit P does not. There is no demonstration that either of these Exhibits was maintained 14 || confidential despite the distribution to the very large network of NATIC agents. 15 For these reasons, the Court denies the request to seal as stated, but provisionally seals subje 16 || to the parties providing additional support the request to seal. 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Its Motion for Parti 18 || Summary Judgment Under Seal (ECF No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (EC 20 || No. 39) along with Exhibits O, P, and Q are provisionally sealed. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later April 20, 2023, Plaintiff or Defendant may file 22 || renewed motion supporting a basis for sealing Exhibits O and P and redacting Exhibit Q. The bas 23 || for sealing Exhibit O and P and redacting Exhibit Q must be something other than mere reliance « 24 || the Protective Order. If no motion is received, the Court will unseal these documents. 25 Dated this 11th day of April, 2023. 26 eg rial apace ELAYNAY. YOU: H 27 UNITED.STATES MAG TE JUDGE 28