Opinion
C18-1408RSL
05-18-2023
BGH HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Plaintiff, v. D.L. EVANS BANK, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL
Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's “Second Motion to Seal” (Dkt. # 156). Defendant filed this motion in tandem with its motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 158), as its motion for summary judgment incorporated information that plaintiffs' previously designated confidential.
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court's files,” and, absent a showing that the public's right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and/or the parties in shielding the material from public view, a seal is not appropriate. LCR 5(g). Accordingly, parties are expected to explore all alternatives to filing a document under seal. Id. 5(g)(1). In its recent summary judgment Order, the Court reminded the parties of the procedure for filing a document under seal in accordance with the Court's local rules. See Dkt. # 176. Specifically, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on the need to file the document under seal in compliance with Local Rule 5(g)(3)(A). Id. The Court further specified that if the parties found the motion must be filed under seal, plaintiffs must file a response to defendant's motion to seal, providing the reasons for keeping the document under seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Id.
On May 12, 2023, defendant filed a “report,” informing the Court that the parties have conferred as directed and have agreed that the motion filed at Dkt. # 158 “need not be sealed.” Dkt. # 180 at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant's motion to seal (Dkt. # 156). The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the motion filed at Dkt. # 158.
IT IS SO ORDERED.