Espinoza v. Gittere

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 3, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MARIO ESPINOZA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00198-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Respondents seek an extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to 12 dismiss Petitioner Mario Espinoza’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. (ECF No. 13 54 (“Motion”).) Since Respondents moved to dismiss, Espinoza has filed a motion to stay 14 this petition pending further state litigation. (See ECF No. 53.) Respondents explain that 15 they intend to respond to Espinoza’s motion to stay before filing a reply in support of their 16 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 54 at 3.) Good cause appearing, the Motion is granted. 17 Also before the Court is Espinoza’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF 18 No. 42). While there is a presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings and 19 documents, a party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by 20 demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. 21 See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Kamakana v. City & 22 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). In 23 general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper 24 purposes. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Espinoza’s 25 counsel explains that the exhibits are all Espinoza’s medical or mental health records, 26 which are generally sealed to maintain privacy. (Id. at 4-5.) The need to protect medical 27 privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to seal records. See, e.g., Williams v. Nev. 28 Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 2:13-cv-00941-JAD-VCF, 2014 WL 3734287, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2014); San Ramon Reg’ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., Case No. C 10- 2 02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at “1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011). The Court grants the motion to seal. 4 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ unopposed first motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54) is granted nunc 6 pro tunc. The deadline to file the reply is extended to September 1, 2023. It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF 8 No. 42) is granted. The exhibits will remain under seal. 9 DATED THIS 3% Day of August 2023. 10

12 oo MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28