Yuga Labs Inc v. Ripps

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00010
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 YUGA LABS INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-APG-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4] 10 RYDER RIPPS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 This miscellaneous case involves a dispute regarding a subpoena for deposition testimony 13 and documents related to a trademark infringement action pending in the Central District of 14 California. The initial filings in this matter are defective on at least a few fronts.1 15 First, although the papers are voluminous, the Court has not identified therein any proof of 16 service showing that the non-party from whom discovery is sought (Ryan Hickman) has been 17 served with any of the filings. But see Local Rule 5-1. Given that it has not been shown that these 18 papers were served, the Court will strike them from the docket. Id. 19 Second, Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal and redact, along with filing on the public docket 20 papers with proposed redactions. See Docket Nos. 3, 4. The Court itself cannot see the information 21 at issue given the manner of filing, however, because Plaintiff did not file under seal the exhibit 22 for which sealing is sought or a non-redacted version of the documents for which redaction is 23 sought. But see Local Rule 10-5(a). Without seeing this information, the Court cannot 24 meaningfully evaluate either the underlying dispute or the sealing/redaction request.2 25 1 The Court does not provide an exhaustive list of the local rules that may be implicated by 26 these filings. Counsel must ensure that their filings moving forward comply with all local rules. 27 2 The Court expresses no opinion herein as to whether the information at issue is properly kept secret from the public. For clarity moving forward, however, the Court notes that the mere 28 fact that a document has been designated as confidential pursuant to a protective order is not sufficient justification to seal that document once filed on the docket. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. ] Third, personal identifying information listed in Local Rule IC 6-1 must be redacted and a motion to seal need not be filed with respect to that information. The redactions made with respect 3] to personal identifying information in the current papers, however, are overly broad. Compare 4! Docket No. 4 at 120 (appearing to redact entirety of non-party Hickman’s address) with Local Rule IC 6-1(a)(5) (indicating that “the city and state” of the address should be identified). 6 In light of the above, the certificate of interested parties (Docket No. 2), the motion to 7|| seal/redact (Docket No. 3), and the motion to compel (Docket No. 4) are hereby STRICKEN. 8|| These papers must be refiled in accordance with the local rules by January 12, 2023. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 6, 2023 11 12 United SeoPRs agistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The designating party will be required to establish sufficient 26] justification to keep any such document secret after any renewed motion to seal/redact is filed. 4 See, e.g., Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). > Such information may be pertinent to the Court’s review of its jurisdiction. Cf Agincourt 28] Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2014 WL 4079555, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014).