Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOHN E. ASHCRAFT, )
) Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), ) ) ORDER ) ) (Docket No. 33) ) ) ) v.
WELK RESORT GROUP, CORP, et al.,
Defendant(s).
__________________________________________)
Pending before the Court is a sealing motion related to briefing on the motion to strike Experian’s errata to its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. Docket No. 33. Experian seeks to redact portions of that deposition transcript. See Docket Nos. 39, 57. On September 13, 2017, the Court issued an order setting a hearing and instructing counsel to be prepared “to address each proposed redaction separately and discuss whether each proposed redaction meets the appropriate standard.” Docket No. 59 at 1. The Court held the hearing on September 25, 2017, at which Experian failed to articulate a “particularized showing” of good cause for any of the redactions sought. See, e.g. , Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. , 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)). 1,2
*2 Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED for the reasons stated at the hearing, and the Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to unseal the entire transcript at Docket No. 32.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2017
________________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
[1] Because Experian failed to satisfy even the “good cause” standard, the Court need not determine 26 whether the more rigorous “compelling reasons” standard applies to the instant motion to seal. 27
[2] Seven of the redactions sought overlap with those denied in the order at Docket No. 58, and the pending motion to seal as to those overlapping requests is therefore DENIED as moot in light of the public 28 availability of the testimony.