Worthams v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 WILLIE WORTHAMS, 6 Case No. 2:24-cv-00023-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, 9 et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal an exhibit filed in conjunction with 12 his reply. Docket No. 107. Defendants did not file a response. See Docket. 13 Plaintiff submits that this exhibit “contains information designated as confidential 14 information by counsel for Defendant GEICO under the protective order previously entered by 15 this Court.” Docket No. 107. 16 The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and 17 records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to 18 nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public 19 access. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show 21 compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. Id. at 1180. All 22 motions to seal must address the applicable standard and explain why that standard has been 23 met. The fact that a court has entered a blanket protective order and that a party has designated a 24 document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish 25 sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 26 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 27 Cir. 1992); see also Docket No. 31 at 3-4. 28 ] This Court has specifically ordered that, if the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the 2|| opposing party has designated a document as confidential, the designator must file, within seven days of the filing of the motion to seal, “either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification 4] for sealing each document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent 5] to unsealing. If neither filing is made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without 6| further notice.” Docket No. 71 at 2. Defendant GEICO has failed to comply with the Court’s 7|| order. 8 As such, Defendant GEICO is ORDERED to file a response by February 3, 2025. If 9| Defendant GEICO fails to file a response fully addressing the applicable standards, the Court may 10] order the subject materials unsealed. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 30, 2025 13 San Nancy J. “Oppe 14 United tates ‘Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28