Cortez v. Stubbs

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 MOISES JOSUE CORTEZ, Case No. 3:21-CV-00316-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

6 v. [ECF Nos. 85, 87]

7 BRANDON STUBBS, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 a t

10 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file exhibits 3, 6, 7 and 14 under 11 seal in support of their opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF 12 Nos. 85, 87.)1 The only basis provided for the request to seal is Plaintiff’s claim that the 13 exhibits consist of information “designated as confidential” pursuant to the parties’ 14 stipulated protective order” which Plaintiff claims supports his request to seal these 15 exhibits. (Id. at 1-2.) Neither of Plaintiff’s motions address the proper standard for the 16 sealing of documents in federal court nor do the motions even describe what the exhibits 17 consist of that he is seeking to “seal.” 18 The party’s designation of materials as “confidential” pursuant to a stipulated 19 protective order does not in turn mean that those documents are entitled to protection 20 from public view when filed in public legal proceeding. Rather, the Ninth Circuit has made 21 clear, “[t]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 22 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 23 Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 24 Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed two identical motions for leave to seal these exhibits in violation of General Order 2021-5. See General Order 2021-5 3(f). Plaintiff and his counsel are 28 advised that failure to the follow General Order 2021-5 in the future may result in sanctions. 1 right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and 2 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 3 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “the presumption of access is not rebutted 4 where documents which are the subject of a protective order are filed with the court as 5 attachments to summary judgment motions.” Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance 6 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003.) 7 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the 8 party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 9 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The 10 choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for 11 sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 12 case. Id. at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard 13 applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 14 Here, Plaintiff seeks to file certain exhibits under seal in connection with his 15 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which are “more than 16 tangentially related” to the merits of a case. Therefore, the compelling reasons standard 17 applies. 18 Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it 19 finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 20 21 on hypothesis or conjecture.’” United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 22 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Finding 23 a compelling reason is “best left to the sound discretion” of the Court. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 24 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). 25 Here, Plaintiff has sought leave to file the exhibits at issue under seal pursuant to 26 the party’s stipulated protective order. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide any 27 information about what the exhibits are that he seeks to seal. In addition, the motions 28 contain no legal authorities or attempts to explain how the compelling reason standard is met in order to support these exhibits being placed under seal. Therefore, it is unclear on what basis or what argument Plaintiff believes supports these records being filed under seal in this case. 4 Moreover, the Court has reviewed the exhibits that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal. ° | These exhibits consist of investigative reports, which the Court routinely receives in other 6 inmate civil rights cases and are rarely, if ever, filed under seal. The Court also notes that there does not appear to be any “confidential” stamp on these documents establishing 8 that they were designated as confidential under the terms of the protective order by 9 Defendants as asserted by Plaintiffs motions. (See ECF No. 81 at J 3(a).) Therefore, 10 Plaintiff has failed to establish that the compelling reasons standard applies in this case " and the motions must be denied. "2 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions to seal, (ECF Nos. 85, 87), are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 13, 2023 »

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