Burr v. Clark County

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 Before the Court is Defendants County of Clark and Heather Mummey’s Motion for Leave 18 to File Exhibits in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 19 Under Seal. ECF No. 95. 20 The Motion seeks leave to file Exhibits XX, ZZ, and AAA through OOO, referenced in 21 Defendants’ Reply in support of Summary Judgment. Defendants describe each exhibit and provides 22 the basis for their request with which the Court agrees. 23 While courts historically “recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and 24 documents, including judicial records and documents” there are compelling reasons that overcome 25 this right. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The court 26 must weigh relevant factors including “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and 27 whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or 1 || 3734287, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2014) citing Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 6’ 2 || n.6 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, the relevant factors include the nature of information and individua 3 || whose information is the subject matter of the proposed sealed documents, both of which suppc 4 || sealing the Exhibits. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants County of Clark and Heath 6 || Mummey’s Motion for Leave to File Exhibits in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition 7 || Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits XX, ZZ, and AAA through OOO to Defendant 9 || Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgement are and shall remain sealed. 10 Dated this 21st day of March, 2023. 11 Caw) |. ArucWat UNITEL Vg TATHS NAG ork ATE JUDGE 13 :

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28