Hampton v. Bean

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 JERMAINE HAMPTON, Case No. 2:24-cv-01504-GMN-EJY 6 Petitioner, 4 v. ORDER JEREMY BEAN, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 Respondents seek leave to file an exhibit in camera and under seal (ECF No. 20): 11 || Exhibit 27, Petitioner’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 21-1), dated July 26, 12 || 2019. Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be made a part of any public 13 || record.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(5). Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance 14 |) with Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, 15 || the Court finds that a compelling need to protect Petitioner Jermaine Hampton’s safety, privacy, 16 || and/or personal identifying information outweighs the public interest in open access to court 17 || records. The PSI, however, does not appear to include information that is so sensitive to warrant 18 || in camera filing. Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion is granted, in part, and Exhibit 27 is 19 || considered properly filed under seal. 20 DATED: July 22, 2025 21 Gf 22 GLOR NAVARRO 3 UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28