Burr v. Clark County

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01101
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 CHRISTOPHER BURR, individually and Case No. 2:20-cv-01101-JCM-EJY as adoptive parent and legal guardian of 5 L.B., a minor; and SUAN HOY guardian ad litem for L.B., a minor, ORDER 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 9 FAMILY SERVICES; COUNTY OF CLARK, a political subdivision of the State of 10 Nevada; HEATHER MUMMEY, individually and in her official capacity; TIM BURCH, 11 individually and in his official capacity; ROE CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 12 FAMILY SERVICES EMPLOYEES I through X, individually and in their official 13 capacities; JONEL KAYE REPOLLO QUERRER, individually; DOES I through 14 XX; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Clark County and Heather Mummey’s Motion for 18 Leave to File Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal. ECF No. 74. 19 Specifically, Defendants seek to seal Exhibits A, C to Z, AA to MM, and OO to WW to their Motion 20 for Summary Judgment. 21 Defendants describe each exhibit and provides the basis for their request. While courts have 22 historically “recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 23 judicial records and documents” there are compelling reasons that overcome this right. Kamakana 24 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006). The court must weigh relevant 25 factors including “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of 26 the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or 27 infringement upon trade secrets.” Williams v. Nevada Dep’t of Corr., 2014 WL 3734287, at *1 (D. 1 || The Court generally recognizes the need to protect medical privacy as a qualified “compellit 2 || reason” for sealing records in connection with a dispositive motion. /d. citing, e.g., San Rame 3 || Reg] Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan.10, 2011 4 || Abbey v. Hawaii Emp’r Mut. Ins. Co.,2010 WL 4715793, at **1—2 (D. Haw. Nov.15, 2010); Wilki 5 || v. Ahern, 2010 WL 3755654, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept.24, 2010); Lombardi v. Tri West Healthca 6 || Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at *1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). 7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ for Leave to Fi 8 || Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits A, C to Z, AA to MM, and OO to WW 10 || Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment are and shall remain sealed. 11 Dated this 26th day of January, 2023. 12 13 FLAYNY) dhe 4 UNITED.STATES MAG TE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28