Miller v. Nye County

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 25, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00601
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 GARY MILLER, Case No. 2:19-cv-00601-JAD-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v.

9 NYE COUNTY, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Miller’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 55), filed on 13 March 2, 2021. To date, no response was filed by Defendants. 14 Although titled a Motion to Seal, Plaintiff’s Motion is more aptly titled a Motion to 15 Unseal as he actually takes issue with whether the documents he filed should be sealed. Plaintiff 16 filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) and included Volume II of his 17 Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 53) in support of that Motion. In Volume II of the Appendix, 18 Plaintiff filed Exhibit Nos. 20-23 under seal on the basis that they contain confidential 19 information that was designated as “Confidential” by Defendants pursuant to the Protective 20 Order. These documents consist of investigative reports and files along with a notice of proposed 21 discipline. Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court unseal these documents that Defendants 22 designated as confidential under the Protective Order because they do not meet the compelling 23 reason standard for maintaining them under seal. 24 Defendants’ failure to file points and authorities in response to the motion “constitutes a 25 consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). Moreover, without any explanation – much 26 less articulable facts – to support a compelling reason for sealing the documents, Defendants have 27 completely failed to carry their burden of establishing that the documents should be under seal at 1 A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 2 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 3 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 4 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden 5 of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard, as previously articulated in Kamakana. 447 F.3d 6 1172. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a 7 compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis 8 or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 9 “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the 10 party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 11 The labels of “dispositive” and “nondispositive” will not be the determinative factor for 12 deciding which test to apply because the focal consideration is “whether the motion is more than 13 tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id., at 1101. Significantly, the fact that the Court has 14 entered a stipulated protective order in this matter and that a party has designated a document as 15 confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds 16 to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th 17 Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 The Court finds that the compelling reasons standard has not been met here. The fact that 19 the information was disclosed as confidential under the Protective Order is not alone sufficient to 20 maintain a seal under the compelling reasons standard. Further, the Court would only be relying 21 on conjecture and speculation as to why Defendants’ investigative records should be sealed at this 22 point in the case. Plaintiff notes that the Confidential label was attached during discovery 23 because the documents contain information related to employee discipline and/or an internal 24 investigation. While the Court could understand that Defendants may want to protect what the 25 internal investigation found as to Deputy Tolle’s conduct on April 10, 2017 and the discipline he 26 received as a result of that conduct during discovery, it is unable to sustain the seal on those 27 documents at this point in the case given that the higher compelling reasons standard now applies. 1 standard has been met and it will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent that Volume II, Exhibits 2 Nos. 20-23 shall be unsealed. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Gary Miller’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 55) 4 is granted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal Plaintiff’s Appendix 6 Volume II, ECF No. 53. 7 DATED: March 25, 2021. 8

10 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27