Order — United States v. Chapon (Dkt. 97, D. Nev.)

Summary

An order by United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe in United States v. Karen Chapon, Case No. 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, filed February 14, 2023 as Document 97. It addresses the defendant's motion to seal (Docket No. 93), noting that filing the motion to seal itself under seal is a disfavored practice. It requires further briefing that either proposes redaction in place of outright sealing or explains why redaction is not feasible.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK Document 97 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 2




 1
                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 2                                        DISTRICT OF NEVADA

 3
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                               Case No. 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK
 4
                             Plaintiff,                                     Order
 5
     v.                                                                [Docket No. 93]
 6
     KAREN CHAPON,
 7
                            Defendant.
 8

 9         Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal. Docket No. 93. Several issues

10 require further exploration.1

11         First, the motion to seal was filed under seal, which is a disfavored practice. In re W. States

12 Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 4944086, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 2016). A

13 motion to seal itself “should not generally require sealing or redaction because litigants should be

14 able to address the applicable standard without specific reference to confidential information.”

15

16

17         1
             A few preliminary points are in order. Unless the information at issue falls within a
   narrow range of records that are traditionally kept secret (e.g., grand jury transcripts and warrant
18
   materials during a pre-indictment investigation), the Court begins any analysis of sealing court
   filings with the recognition that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
19
   Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court is
   safeguarding the public right to access, so sealing requests are not automatically granted simply
20
   because there may be no opposition from the parties to that relief. E.g., Allegiant Travel Co. v.
   Kinzer, 2022 WL 2819734, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. July 19, 2022). The fact that a party has designated
21
   documents as confidential pursuant to stipulated protective order does not, without more, justify
   sealing those documents when they are filed with the Court. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183;
22
   Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing Beckman
   Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Docket No. 90 at 2
23
   (stipulated protective order in this case requiring compliance with, inter alia, Local Rule IA 10-5
   with respect to filing materials under seal).

           Case 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK Document 97 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 2




 1 Allegiant Travel Co. v. Kinzer, 2022 WL 2819734, at *3 (D. Nev. July 19, 2022). It is not clear

 2 why the motion to seal was itself filed under seal in this case.

 3           Second, the motion to seal does not include any points and authorities in support of the

 4 sealing request, nor meaningfully developed argument.

 5           Third, any request to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the public

 6 sphere only the material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d

 7 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021) (citing Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal.

 8 2016)).     To the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving

 9 meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed

10 rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also in re Roman Catholic

11 Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep

12 in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”). It is not clear why the entirety of the

13 motion to compel warrants secrecy from the public as opposed to limited redaction.

14           The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to maintain the pending materials (Docket Nos.

15 93 and 94) under seal at this juncture. To the extent either party seeks to keep these materials

16 sealed or to redact these materials, that party must file a brief justifying that relief by February 21,

17 2023. The brief must include meaningfully developed argument and must include points and

18 authorities. The brief must also either propose redaction in lieu of outright sealing or must explain

19 why redaction is not feasible.

20           IT IS SO ORDERED.

21           DATED: February 14, 2023

22
                                                   NANCY J. KOPPE
23                                                 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE



                                                      2

File and source

File

97.pdf

Size

121,196 bytes

SHA-256

248a08f7c14f38d0c2ac51595e7d68a4263a4edaedf058fd48dbf546b109de21

Our copy

97.pdf