Edgerton v. Hillard

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00693
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 EDWARD H. EDGERTON, JR., 4 Case No. 2:23-cv-00693-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 5 Order v. 6 [Docket No. 51] HILLARD, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 On December 4, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant Hillard to file a supplemental brief 10 addressing why an explanation about non-existent evidence must be provided privately. Docket 11 No. 48 at 1. Defendant has now filed that brief, as well as a motion for leave to submit declaration 12 ex parte for in camera review.1 Docket No. 51. Defendant submits that he cannot provide an 13 explanation as to why video footage does not exist to Plaintiff “because doing so would raise 14 serious safety and security concerns for Southern Desert Correctional Center” and thus seeks leave 15 to submit this information in a declaration for in camera review. Id. However, Defendant provides 16 no explanation as to why in camera review is warranted, rather than filing the declaration under 17 seal. 18 In camera review is disfavored and is not a substitute for the adversarial process or for a 19 party’s obligation to justify its withholding of documents. See, e.g., Garcia v. Serv. Empls. Int’l 20 Union, Case No. 2:17-cv-01340-APG-NJK, 2018 WL 6566563, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2018) 21 (citing Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., 157 F.R.D. 691, 700 (D. Nev. 1994) and Nikita, 22 Ltd. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., 181 F.R.D. 465, 467 (D. Nev. 1998)). To the extent Defendant Hillard 23 seeks to file a document under seal, he must do so with an accompanying motion to seal that 24 complies with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 25 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access 26 1 For each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must 27 be filed, and a separate event must be selected for that document. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b). In violation of the Local Rules, Defendant filed the supplemental brief and motion for leave as one 28 and failed to select the proper type of “event,” which led to the motion being incorrectly docketed. 1}| to judicial files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents 2|| attached to nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome 5| the presumption of public access. /d. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the applicable 6] standard and explain why that standard has been met. 7 Further, without obtaining leave from the Court, Deputy Attorney General Victoria Corey 8|| handed the declaration to the undersigned’s courtroom administrator after an unrelated hearing. 9] Counsel must arrange with Aristides Caytuero to pick up the submission. Mr. Caytuero can be 10] reached at (702) 464-5566. 11 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to submit declaration ex parte for in camera 12] review is DENIED. Docket No. 51. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: December 19, 2024 15 co = Nancy J. Koppe., 16 United States Ma gistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28