De Darr v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
2:24-cv-01051
D. Nev.Jun 6, 2025Background
- This case is before the United States District Court, District of Nevada, involving Maria Castro De Darr as Plaintiff and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. as Defendant.
- The parties submitted a stipulated protective order to govern the exchange of Home Depot’s Operating Procedures and Safety Training Videotapes during discovery.
- The primary purpose of the stipulated protective order is to protect allegedly confidential business materials.
- The Court granted the protective order but subject to certain modifications and reminders regarding the standards for filing documents under seal.
- The Court outlined the need to follow both local rules and Ninth Circuit legal standards for sealing records, emphasizing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
- No factual showing of confidentiality for specific documents was found; the order facilitates discovery but does not conclusively decide confidentiality or the appropriateness of sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should approve a protective order for discovery of Home Depot’s materials | Protect sensitive business info by sealing | Home Depot’s procedures and videos require confidentiality | Protective order granted with modifications and procedural requirements |
| Proper standard for sealing judicial records | Confidentiality is sufficient for sealing | Designation as confidential justifies sealing | A party must meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing, showing more than just confidentiality |
| Application of local/electronic filing procedures for sealed documents | Sealing should follow stipulated order terms | Sealing process can rely on confidential designations | All sealing must comply with Local Rule IA 10-5 and court’s electronic filing rules |
| Sufficiency of 'confidential' designation alone for sealing requests | Confidentiality label alone should allow sealing | Designation as confidential suffices | Labeling as confidential is insufficient; compelling reasons or specific factual support required |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulates the compelling reasons standard for sealing court records)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (clarifies the difference between compelling reasons and good cause for sealing)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (confidential designations in protective orders do not justify sealing records by themselves)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (addresses procedure and standard for sealing documents designated as confidential)