Barnett v. Clark County School District

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA UNIQUE BARNETT, et al. Case No.: 2:21-cv-00218-APG-VCF 4 Plaintiffs Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal v. [ECF No. 81] CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 I previously granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to seal various documents supporting their opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 77. I ordered the documents temporarily sealed and required the parties to confer about what portions of the exhibits should remain sealed. Jd. The plaintiffs now move to seal only two of those documents, 13] and agree to make those publicly available in redacted form. ECF No. 81. The request satisfies the standards for sealing set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 81) is granted. 17] Exhibits 28 and 35 are properly sealed and shall remain so. The plaintiffs shall file publicly available but redacted versions of those two exhibits and unredacted versions of the other 19] documents that were the subject of my prior order (which the parties now agree do not need to be sealed). Those documents are to be filed in CM/ECF by March 31, 2023. 21 DATED this 22nd day of March, 2023. 22 JINR. °° ANDREWP.GORDON. SS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE