Fritz v. Breitenbach

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00241
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 GREGORY A. FRITZ, Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-ART-CLB

4 Petitioner, ORDER

5 v.

6 NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, et al.,

7 Respondents.

8 9 In this habeas corpus action, on January 23, 2005, the respondents filed 10 a motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF No. 41), and on that same date 11 they filed under seal the exhibits that are the subject of that motion, which are 12 their Exhibits 3, 14, 83, and 85 (ECF No. 42). The petitioner, Gregory A. Fritz, 13 who is represented by appointed counsel, did not respond to the motion. 14 While there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial 15 filings, and while courts prefer that the public retain access them, see Nixon v. 16 Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a court may seal its 17 records if a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” to do so. See Kamakana v. 18 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, 19 “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper purposes. 20 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The exhibits in 21 question include records regarding a minor victim of crime, medical records, and 22 presentence investigation reports. There is good cause for those exhibits to be 23 filed under seal. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 2 || Under Seal (ECF No. 41) is granted. Respondents have filed under seal the 3 || exhibits that are the subject of their motion (ECF No. 42). No further action is 4 || required. 5 Dated this 18 day of February, 2025. ° Yrs jlosead 7 ANNE R. TRAUM 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28