Gutierrez v. Mission Support and Test Services LLC

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [6] BENITO GUTIERREZ, et al., 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-00339-ART-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 16] MISSION SUPPORT AND TEST 10 SERVICES LLC, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 13 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., [14] 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196 , 203 15 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 16 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 18 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 19 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159 , 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 20 (“Notwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 21 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 22 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“The parties are free to enter agreements 23 between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When 24 parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, 25 judges are well within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey 26 v. Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610 , at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). [27] 1 If discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that 28 point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 161. ] Pending before the Court is a stipulated confidentiality agreement between the parties, 2|| accompanied by a joint request for judicial approval in the form of a protective order. Docket No. 3] 16. As explained above, the parties’ agreement already appears to be enforceable pursuant to Rule 4] 29(b). No showing has been made as to why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ agreement. 6 Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 3, 2025 10 United State sMagistrate Judge 1]