Demissie v. Ford
2:25-cv-00504
| D. Nev. | Jul 30, 2025Background
- This case involves Daniel Demissie as plaintiff against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, several officers, entities associated with Caesars Entertainment and Flamingo Las Vegas, and the Nevada Attorney General.
- The parties in this federal civil action jointly sought a confidentiality agreement and protective order governing discovery materials.
- The purpose is to regulate the designation, handling, use, and disclosure of confidential information produced during discovery.
- The order specifies that only materials meeting legal standards for confidentiality can be protected, requiring parties to justify such designations.
- The order establishes procedures for making and challenging confidential designations and for handling such material if sought in other legal proceedings.
- The agreement is stipulated and signed by all parties and is entered by the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Southern Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Confidentiality | Seek reasonable limits on confidentiality | Seek strong protection of sensitive info | Only material meeting legal standards is protected |
| Process for Designating Confidential Materials | Designations must be justified and specific | Want ability to designate broadly | Protections limited to specific, justified materials |
| Challenging Confidential Designations | Must be an efficient challenge process | Designating party must prove necessity | Burden on designating party; court review available |
| Use and Disclosure of Protected Material | Use only for litigation, limit disclosure | Allow necessary access for defense | Disclosure limited to specified receivers only |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (sets out the compelling reasons standard for sealing judicial records)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterates differing sealing standards for dispositive vs. non-dispositive motions)
- Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (explains standard for sealing discovery materials)