Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services

Opinion

APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff, EXTENSION OF TIME, AND v. (2) CLARIFYING AUGUST 14, 2020 ORDER [ECF NO. 55] HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS (ECF No. 60) HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification of Order at Docket Entry 55 (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 60). In its August 14, 2020 Order (ECF No. 55), the Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer “regarding any narrowly tailored redactions necessary to protect Defendants’ confidential business information.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff reports that the Parties have met and conferred, Ex Parte Mot. at 1, “but Defendants have redacted all of the[ paragraphs and exhibits referenced in the Court’s August 14, 2020 Order] fully,” meaning “the parties need time to meet and confer again, thereby requiring an extension.” Id. at 2. Further, “to file things properly, ] || Plaintiff needs at least 3 weeks more each time to research each topic, the history of law on that topic, and most recent decision that could impact the same.” Id. (footnote omitted). To the extent Plaintiff requests clarification, Plaintiff is correct that “the Court conclude[d] that Defendants ha[d] established that compelling reasons exist to file under seal portions of” various paragraphs and documents as enumerated in the August 14, 2020 Order. See ECF No. 55 at 4 (emphasis added). The Court therefore ordered the Parties to {meet and confer “regarding any narrowly tailored redactions necessary to protect Defendants’ confidential business information.” See id. at 5 (emphasis added). The Court therefore GRANTS the Parties a three-week extension of time to comply with its August 14, 2020 Order, including further meet-and-confer efforts to agree upon narrowly tailored redactions. The Court also ordered on August 14, 2020 that, “/t/o avoid superfluous motion practice, the Court urges the Parties to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective lorder and/or before filing information that may be confidential or gratuitously inflammatory.” ECF No. 55 at 5 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff “humbly seeks clarification on ‘and/or before filing information that may be confidential or gratuitously /inflammatory.’” Ex Parte Mot. at 2. In cautioning the Parties to avoid “gratuitously /inflammatory” information, the emphasis is on “gratuitously”—the Parties shall endeavor /to avoid filing information that is not relevant to the instant dispute but that instead serves only “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Dated: August 28, 2020 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge