Falls v. Desert Palace, Inc
2:17-cv-00019-APG-BNW
D. Nev.Jun 17, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Berry, Falls, Kaufmann) moved for leave to file Appendix 3 (various exhibits) under seal in support of their opposition to Desert Place, Inc.’s (d/b/a Caesars Palace) motion for summary judgment.
- Defendants did not oppose the sealing motion.
- The exhibits had been marked “Confidential” during discovery and include material plaintiffs characterized as concerning Caesars’ customers, employees, and financial information.
- The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the heightened "compelling reasons" standard for sealing documents attached to dispositive motions.
- The court found plaintiffs’ justifications inadequate: (1) confidentiality designations alone do not satisfy the compelling-reasons standard, and (2) plaintiffs failed to provide specific factual findings showing why each exhibit should be sealed.
- The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to renew by a specified deadline (June 21, 2019), warning that exhibits would be unsealed if they did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhibits attached to an opposition to a dispositive motion may be filed under seal | Exhibits were marked Confidential in discovery and contain private/confidential/proprietary information about customers, employees, or finances | Defendants did not oppose sealing (no substantive adversary argument presented) | Denied without prejudice: confidentiality designations alone and conclusory assertions of privacy are insufficient; plaintiffs must show compelling reasons with specific facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes strong presumption of public access and the "compelling reasons" standard for sealing documents attached to dispositive motions)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (documents subject to a discovery protective order are not automatically sealable when filed with dispositive motions)