Harris v. Ely State Prison Staff

Opinion

3 * * *

4 AMMAR HARRIS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00380-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

6 v. [ECF No. 176]

7 ELY STATE PRISON STAFF, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is Defendants motion for leave to file video evidence under seal 10 in support of the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 176.) Plaintiff opposed the 11 motion, (ECF No. 181), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 183). For the reasons 12 discussed below, the motion, (ECF No. 176), is denied. 13 “The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 14 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 15 Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 16 Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this 17 right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and 18 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 19 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the 21 party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 22 23 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The 24 choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for 25 sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 26 case. Id. at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard 27 applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 28 /// 1 Defendants seek to file a video exhibit under seal in connection with the motion for 2 summary judgment, which is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of a case. 3 Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. Under the compelling reasons 4 standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and 5 articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” 6 United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto 7 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Finding a compelling reason is “best 8 left to the sound discretion” of the Court. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting 9 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). 10 Here, Defendants seeks to file video evidence under seal as the video “shows 11 internal prison facilities and its disclosure to the public would create a significant security 12 risk” and because the video also shows “faces of offenders1 who are not otherwise 13 involved in this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 176.) Defendants only cite general safety and security 14 concerns as well as confidentiality, without explaining what safety and security concerns 15 are implicated if this exhibit is available to the public. Nor do they explain how this exhibit 16 is confidential and should be excepted from the general rule of public access. For all these 17 reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion fails to articulate a compelling need to 18 seal this exhibit. 19 /// 20 21 /// 22 ///

23 1 The Court finds this argument to lack merit as the NDOC’s own public offender 24 search website contains the faces of offenders housed within the NDOC, which includes information related to each individual inmate, including the facility in which they are 25 currently housed. NDOC Offender Search, https://ofdsearch.doc.nv.gov/ (last visited April 21, 2025). The Court may take judicial notice of public information on websites hosted by 26 the NDOC. See U.S. v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice 27 of public information on the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator website); Foley v. Martz, No. 3:18-cv-02001-CAB-AGS, 2018 WL 5111998, at *1 n.1. (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) 28 (taking judicial notice of information on California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate locator website). 1 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion, (ECF No. 176), is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Exhibit C (ECF No. 177 (video manually filed with the Court)). 3 DATED: April 21, 2025 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28