Thomas v. Clark County School District Police Department
2:13-cv-01743
D. Nev.Apr 20, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Michael Thomas filed an employment-discrimination action against Clark County School District Police Department and others.
- On March 23, 2015, Defendants filed a 158‑page Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment with exhibits and filed the entire submission under seal.
- Defendants simultaneously filed an unopposed Motion to Seal, arguing the motion referenced confidential personnel files and thus the entire filing should remain sealed.
- The court applied Ninth Circuit standards distinguishing records attached to dispositive motions (Kamakana) from nondispositive motions and required compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to seal dispositive‑motion records.
- Defendants did not identify any traditionally secret category (e.g., grand jury or pre‑indictment warrant materials) nor prove a privilege over the personnel files, instead submitting the sealed materials with conclusory assertions.
- The court denied the Motion to Seal, permitted a renewed motion with leave to refile by a date certain, and temporarily kept the dispositive filings sealed pending any renewed showing; the court also instructed that redactions, not wholesale sealing, are appropriate if specific confidential portions are shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entire dispositive brief and exhibits may be sealed | Public right of access supports unsealing | All 158 pages reference confidential personnel files and thus must be sealed | Denied: wholesale sealing not justified; must show compelling reasons with specific facts |
| Standard applicable to sealing records attached to dispositive motions | N/A | Sealing appropriate to protect confidentiality of personnel files | Kamakana standard applies: must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings; not met |
| Whether personnel files are automatically confidential/privileged | N/A | Personnel files are confidential and not a matter of public concern | Rejected: personnel files are not presumptively secret; privilege not shown by defendants |
| Appropriate remedy if some content is confidential | N/A | Seal entire motion because it references confidential material | Court: may redact only specific privileged/confidential portions; public may access remainder |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (recognition of public right to inspect judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit: compelling reasons standard for sealing dispositive‑motion records)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (good‑cause/particularized showing under Rule 26(c))
- Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (personnel files may be privileged in certain circumstances)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192 (burden on party asserting privilege; personnel files not automatically privileged)
- United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988 (party asserting privilege bears burden to establish elements)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (identifies categories traditionally kept secret)
- Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660 (courts need not sift through masses of papers seeking secrecy)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (Rule 26(c) requires particularized showing; conclusory claims insufficient)
- Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (Rule 26(c) protective orders require particular and specific factual demonstration)