Miller v. Daniels

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00764
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:23-cv-00764-JAD-DJA Duston Miller, 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motions to Extend Time 5 v. and to Seal Exhibit

6 Charles Daniels, et al., [ECF Nos. 22, 23, 27, 31]

7 Defendants

8 Pro se plaintiff Duston Miller sues several Nevada Department of Corrections officials 9 for Eighth Amendment violations related to the Department’s handling of the COVID-19 10 pandemic and First Amendment violations after an official retaliated against Miller for trying to 11 file a grievance. Both parties move to extend the December 20, 2024, deadline to file dispositive 12 motions by approximately 30 days.1 I find good cause to extend that deadline nunc pro tunc to 13 January 29, 2025. I thus deem timely the summary-judgment motion that the defendants filed on 14 that date. Miller also moves for an extension of time to respond to that summary-judgment 15 motion, citing a prison transfer and reduced law-library time as cause for the request.2 Miller has 16 shown good cause for a 30-day extension to respond, so I grant his extension motion. 17 The defendants move to file a summary-judgment exhibit containing Miller’s medical 18 records under seal.3 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 19 documents including judicial records and documents.’”4 “Although the common law right of 20

21 1 ECF Nos. 22, 23. 22 2 ECF No. 31. 3 ECF No. 27. 23 4 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 2\|records.””? “A party seeking to seal judicial records [attached to a dispositive motion] can 3|| overcome the strong presumption of access by providing ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that All override the public policies favoring disclosure.”® “When ruling on a motion to seal court 5|| records, the district court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party 6|| seeking to seal judicial records.”’ 7 I have reviewed the sealed exhibit in camera, and I conclude that there are compelling 8|| reasons to seal. The exhibit contains Miller’s medical records, and the need to protect medical 9|| privacy is a compelling one that outweighs the public’s interest in access to that information. So grant the defendants’ motion to seal. 11 Conclusion 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ motions to extend the dispositive- 13]| motion deadline [ECF Nos. 22 & 23] are GRANTED nunc pro tunc to January 29, 2025. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to seal [ECF No. 27] is 15}|}|GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF No. 28. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Miller’s motion for an extension of time to respond to 17||the defendants’ summary-judgment motion [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED. Miller must file his 18] response by Friday, March 21, 2025.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey 20 February 20, 2025 21 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 1 Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)).