Dixon v. Williams

Opinion

Attorney General 2 DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1150 5 E-mail: drands@ag.nv.gov

6 Attorneys for Kenneth Williams, Jeremy Bean, Mary Holt, Jaymie Cabrera, Mark Hidrosollo 7 and David Rivas

Case No. 2:24-cv-02103-APG-MDC 11 Plaintiff,

12 vs. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS 1, 3, 4, 5 13 KENNETH WILLIAMS, et al., AND 7 UNDER SEAL

14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants Kenneth Williams, Jeremy Bean, Mary Holt (Mary Manalastas), 17 Jaymie Cabrera, Mark Hidrosollo and David Rivas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. 18 Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy 19 Attorney General, hereby submits its Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 20 under seal in support of Defendants’ Response to This Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF 21 31). This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and 22 all paper and pleadings on file in this matter. 25 This is a response to Plaintiff’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Immediately 26 Supplement Their Responses (ECF 50). 27 Defendants seek leave to file under seal, Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, which consist of 2 LR IA 10-5(a) requires papers filed with the Court under seal to be accompanied by 3 a motion for leave to file those documents under seal. See LR IA 10-5(a). Courts have 4 recognized a general right of the public to inspect and copy public records and documents, 5 including judicial records and documents. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 6 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). The strong presumption of 7 public access must be overcome by a party seeking to seal a judicial record. See Ctr. for 8 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kamakana, 9 447 F.3d at 1178). This is a stringent standard, and a party must demonstrate “‘a 10 compelling reason and [articulate] a factual basis . . . without relying on hypothesis or 11 conjecture” to justify sealing court records. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97.

12 The “compelling reason” standard applies to any motion “more than tangentially related 13 to the merits of a case[,]” but especially applies to dispositive motions. See Id. at 1100–01. 14 What constitutes a compelling reason is within the discretion of the District Court, 15 including items that could “‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal[.]’” See Id. at 16 1097. 18 Courts have recognized a general right of the public to inspect and copy public 19 records and documents, including judicial records and documents. Kamakana v. City and 20 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 21 Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts and 22 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the 23 general right of public access. (Id.) Otherwise, “a strong presumption in favor of access is 24 the starting point.” (Id.) (Internal citations omitted). 25 On a showing of specific facts supporting compelling reasons for sealing records, 26 the court should conscientiously weigh the compelling reasons against the public’s right 27 of access. (Id.) If the court finds the balance tips in favor of sealing the record, the court 1 conjecture. (Id. at 1179.) Proof of a risk that use of the records “might . . . become a 2 vehicle” for causing harm is “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s 3 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records.” (Id. at 1179) (Internal quotation 4 marks omitted). 5 Courts have consistently recognized that the need to protect sensitive medical 6 information is a compelling reason to seal records. See San Ramon Regional Medical 7 Center, Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931 at n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); 8 Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mutual Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793 at 1-2 (D.Hi. Nov. 15, 9 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL267483 at 1-2 (D.Hi. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 10 WL3755654 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 11 2009 WL 1212170 at 1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009).

12 Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Request to 13 Immediately Supplement Their Responses (ECF 50) contain confidential medical records 14 from Dixon’s medical file. There is little need for public disclosure of this information as 15 compared to the significant interest in preserving the confidentiality of this private and 16 sensitive information. 17 Accordingly, Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 consisting of Dixon’s medical records, should 18 be filed under seal to prevent their entry into the public record and to protect Dixon’s 19 confidentiality and institutional safety and security. Filing Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 20 under seal will not prejudice Dixon because a copy of these Exhibits will be provided to 21 Plaintiff’s Counsel. 23 The need to protect the confidential nature of Dixon’s medical records, along with 24 the unique safety and security concerns presented in the prison context, are compelling 25 reasons to justify the filing of certain records under seal. For these reasons, 26 /// 27 /// 1 || Defendants respectfully requests this Court grant their Motion for Leave To File Exhibi 2 3, 4, 5 and 7 under seal in support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs □□□□□□□ 3 || Immediately Supplement Their Responses (ECF 50). 4 DATED this 1st day of May, 2025. 6 Attorney General

7 By: /s/ Douglas R. Rands DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 8 Senior Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED:

M ANDREW P. GORDON 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28