Vladik Bykov v. 7435 - 159th Place, Ne, LLC;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VLADIK BYKOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
7435 - 159TH PLACE, NE, LLC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35632
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00802-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Vladik Bykov appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action pursuant to a settlement agreement. Bykov challenges only certain orders
entered prior to dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35632 2
review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions regarding protective
orders, Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bykov’s motions to
seal or redact financial information and allegedly defamatory statements because
the motions did not demonstrate good cause. See id. at 1210-11 (“For good cause
to exist, the party seeking the protection bears the burden of showing specific
prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”).
Contrary to Bykov’s contention, the district court properly reviewed whether
the magistrate judge’s orders were “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Bykov’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --