Jesus Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Calvin Johnson, et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Jesus Rodriguez Rodriguez, Case No. 2:22-cv-00912-ART-DJA 5 Petitioner, Order Granting Motion to Seal and 6 v. Granting Extension of Time to File Response to Petition to 7 Calvin Johnson, et al., November 13, 2025

8 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 29, 32)

9 10 Respondents ask the Court for an extension of time to file a response to 11 Jesus Rodriguez Rodriguez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. (ECF No. 12 32.) Good cause appearing, the motion is granted. 13 Respondents have also filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera 14 and under seal. (ECF No. 29.) While there is a presumption favoring public access 15 to judicial filings and documents, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 16 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the 17 presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public 18 policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 19 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” 20 exist where the records may be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing 21 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Respondents ask to file Rodriguez’s presentence 22 investigation report (“PSI”) in camera and under seal because it is confidential 23 under state law as well as Nevada Department of Corrections regulations. (ECF 24 No. 29.) The Court has reviewed the PSI and concludes that Respondents have 25 demonstrated compelling reasons to file the PSI under seal. However, the PSI 26 does not appear to include information that is so sensitive that it would pose a 27 security threat if Petitioner submitted the proper documentation to his 28 caseworker and viewed the PSI. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and 1 || the PSI will remain under seal. 2 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ unopposed motion for extension 3 || of time to file a response to the petition (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 4 || The deadline is extended to November 13, 2025. 5 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for leave to file exhibit in 6 || camera and under seal is (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 7 || part. The exhibit will remain under seal. 8 9 Dated this 16 day of October 2025. 10 11 A, we jlosent en 12 ANNE R. TRAUM 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28