Wealthy Inc. v. Cornelia

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 WEALTHY INC. and DALE Case No. 2:21-cv-01173-JCM-EJY BUCZKOWSKI, 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 SPENCER CORNELIA, CORNELIA 8 MEDIA LLC, and CORNELIA EDUCATION LLC, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal: Exhibits 7 & 10 to Plaintiffs’ 12 Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to NRS 41.660 and Motion for 13 Summary Judgment. ECF No. 81. 14 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiffs must meet their burden of overcoming 15 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City 16 and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to 17 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of 18 showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). The mere fact that the production of records 19 may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone 20 compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 21 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, parties “may not simply rely on [a] … Stipulated Protective Order … to 22 justify sealing documents filed in the record under seal.” Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 23 2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) citing Foltz, 331 24 F.3d at 1133 (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, will not make a showing of good 25 cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992) (blanket stipulated 26 protective orders are over inclusive by nature and do not include a finding of “good cause”). 27 The Court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and the Exhibits sought to be sealed when filed 1 || Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment meet with “compelling reason 2 || standard for sealing these portions of the Exhibits that are properly filed on the public docket. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal: Exhib: 4 || 7 & 10 to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to NE 5 || 41.660 and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81) is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ filing at ECF No. 80, containing unredact 7 || versions of Exhibit 7 and 10, shall remain sealed. 9 Dated this 31st day of October, 2022. "0 , 0 Cauca). Amuclvkhol 12 UNITEL rare WActorh ATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28