Hill v. The State of Nevada

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BRANDON JOVAN HILL, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01221-GMN-MDC

9 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Seal

10 v. (ECF No. 17) 11 THE STATE OF NEVADA,

12 Respondent.

13 Respondents move for leave to file an exhibit in camera and under seal in 14 Brandon Jovan Hill’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceedings. (ECF No. 17.) 15 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents, 16 see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking 17 to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling 18 reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City and 19 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In 20 general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper 21 purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Respondents ask to file 22 Hill’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) in camera and under seal because it is 23 confidential under state law and for Hill’s safety because it contains sensitive 1}/information. (ECF No. 17.) The Court has reviewed the PSI and concludes that Respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the PSI under seal. However, the PSI does not appear to include information that is so sensitive that it would pose a security threat to Petitioner if he had a copy of the PSI in his cell. Respondents note that the PSI may be necessary to address some of Hill's claims. 6|| Thus, Petitioner may need access to the PSI. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, the PSI will remain under seal. 8 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File an Exhibit /n Camera and Under Seal (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED in part. The document will remain 10] under seal. 11 12 13 DATED: 4 March 2025. “hp, Buc. GLOR/A M. NAVARRO 15 aarp DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23