Lomax v. Hutchins

D. Nevada

Lomax v. Hutchins

DecidedJuly 7, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01284

StatusUnknown

This text of Lomax v. Hutchins (Lomax v. Hutchins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lomax v. Hutchins, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 NATHAN LOMAX, Case No. 2:23-cv-01284-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s medical records 11 attached as exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 29 at 2. As the party seeking 12 to seal a judicial record Defendants must meet their burden of overcoming the strong presumption 13 in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 14 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the 15 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing 16 that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). Importantly, medical privacy meets the compelling 17 reason standard. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 18 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 19 WL4715793, at *1-2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D. Haw. 20 June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Foltz v. State 21 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). 22 The Court considered the Motion and the medical records sought to be filed under seal. 23 The Court finds the medical records, Exhibits E, F, and G to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 24 Judgment, are properly sealed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 29) 26 is GRANTED. 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits E, F, and G to Defendants’ Motion for 2 Summary Judgment filed at ECF No. 30 are and shall remain sealed. 3 DATED this 7th day of July, 2025. 4

5 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 NATHAN LOMAX, Case No. 2:23-cv-01284-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s medical records 11 attached as exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 29 at 2. As the party seeking 12 to seal a judicial record Defendants must meet their burden of overcoming the strong presumption 13 in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 14 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the 15 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing 16 that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). Importantly, medical privacy meets the compelling 17 reason standard. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 18 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 19 WL4715793, at *1-2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D. Haw. 20 June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Foltz v. State 21 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). 22 The Court considered the Motion and the medical records sought to be filed under seal. 23 The Court finds the medical records, Exhibits E, F, and G to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 24 Judgment, are properly sealed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 29) 26 is GRANTED. 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits E, F, and G to Defendants’ Motion for 2 Summary Judgment filed at ECF No. 30 are and shall remain sealed. 3 DATED this 7th day of July, 2025. 4

5 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lomax v. Hutchins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomax-v-hutchins-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack