Anthony Harris v. State of Nevada, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:22-cv-00556-ART-CSD ANTHONY HARRIS, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 124 v. 6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Before the court is Defendants' motion for leave to file Exhibits B, C, D, E, and G under 10 seal in connection with their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 124.) 11 When the documents sought to be sealed are “more than tangentially related to the merits 12 of a case,” as they are here, the court must find compelling reasons support the sealing of the 13 documents. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97, 1101 (9th 14 Cir. 2016). 15 Defendants argue that Exhibit B, which is a DVD containing a recording from a hand- 16 held camera of the use of force at issue in this matter, should be sealed because it shows the 17 general layout of the institution’s property room and has the potential to jeopardize safety and 18 security of the institution. Exhibit C is a DVD containing a stationery recording of the use of 19 force at issue in this matter, which Defendants also argue could potentially jeopardize safety and 20 security. The court will accept Defendants’ representations regarding the safety and security 21 concerns posed by the public release of these recordings, and will allow them to remain sealed. 22 Exhibit D contains Plaintiff’s medical records. This court, and others within the Ninth 23 Circuit, have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a "compelling 1}}reason" for sealing records because the plaintiffs interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the public’s need for direct access to the medical records. 3 Exhibit E contains Plaintiffs information summary and case notes. Exhibit G contains 4! relevant portions of Plaintiff’s institutional file. Defendants assert there is little need for public disclosure of this information as compared to the significant interest in preserving the 6] confidentiality of this private and sensitive information. Defendants do not provide any specific 7\| argument regarding what is confidential or sensitive in these exhibits. Nor do they assert any 8|| specific argument regarding how disclosure of this information would jeopardize safety and security. The motion will be denied as to Exhibits E and G. However, the court will direct that 10]| the exhibits remain under seal for a period of time so that Defendants may file, if they wish, a motion which articulates specific arguments regarding why Exhibits E and G should remain 12|| sealed. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 124) is GRANTED with respect to Exhibits B, C, and D. 15}| The motion is DENIED as to Exhibits E and G; however, Exhibits E and G shall remain 16|| SEALED provisionally. Defendants have until January 19, 2026, to file a renewed motion for 17|| leave to file Exhibits E and G consistent with this Order. If Defendants do not file a renewed motion within this timeframe, Exhibits E and G will be unsealed. If a motion 1s timely filed, the court will address whether the exhibits shall remain sealed in due course. 20) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2026 CS oy Craig S. Denney 23 United States Magistrate Judge