Sciara v. Campbell
2:18-cv-01700
| D. Nev. | Jun 6, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Brian Sciara sued defendants Stephen Campbell and Sprout Financial; related motions in District of Nevada.
- Defendants moved to modify the discovery plan to extend the expert report deadline from March 20, 2023 to April 7, 2023, and in reply asked to extend all remaining deadlines.
- Sciara and Capfund Enterprises, LLC opposed the extension, arguing it would shorten their time to designate a rebuttal expert; they did not respond to the sealing motion.
- Defendants also moved to redact portions of their partial summary judgment brief and to seal Exhibits E–H, relying on the parties’ protective-order confidentiality designations but offering no compelling-reasons showing.
- The court granted the expert-deadline extension nunc pro tunc (treating disclosures made on or before April 7 as timely) but refused to extend other deadlines raised first in reply.
- The court deferred ruling on the motion to seal, ordered Sciara and Capfund to file a declaration demonstrating compelling reasons to seal by July 6, 2023, and warned it will unseal the documents if no declaration is filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to extend expert-report deadline (and remaining schedule) | Extension would unfairly reduce time to produce rebuttal expert | Requested narrow extension to April 7; alternatively asked to extend all deadlines | Court deemed expert disclosures timely if served by Apr 7 (granted nunc pro tunc); denied request to extend other deadlines raised in reply |
| Whether to seal/redact partial-summary-judgment exhibits and brief portions | Did not file merits response (procedural consent under local rule), but no declaration supporting sealing | Sought sealing based on protective-order confidentiality designations but made no showing of compelling reasons | Court deferred ruling; ordered plaintiff to file declaration showing compelling reasons by July 6, 2023, or documents will be unsealed |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Nev. v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1990) (parties generally may not raise new issues for the first time in a reply brief)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (records attached to motions more than tangentially related to merits may be sealed only for compelling reasons)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating that sealing requires articulable, compelling reasons and factual basis)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (confidential designation under protective order alone does not justify sealing)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (protective-order confidentiality does not automatically warrant sealing)