Mullner v. Johnson

Opinion

TROY LEE MULLNER, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00535-JAD-BNW

Petitioner Order Lifting Stay, Granting Motion to v. Seal and Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Second Amended Petition to JOHNSON, et al., February 19, 2024

Respondents [ECF Nos. 48, 52]

I previously granted Troy Lee Mullner a stay in this habeas matter pending completion of the Federal Public Defender’s investigation of his case, and the case was administratively closed.1 Mullner has now filed a second amended petition, and he moves for leave to file an exhibit under seal.2 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents,3 a party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.4 In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper purposes.5 Here, Mullner asks to file his psychiatric evaluation under seal in order to protect his privacy rights under Title I of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The need 1 ECF No. 36. 2 ECF No. 48. 3 See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 4 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 5 Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 1 to protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to seal records.° I have reviewed the report and conclude that Mullner has demonstrated compelling reasons to file it under seal. So I grant the motion, and the psychiatric evaluation will remain under seal. Respondents also ask the court for an extension of time to file a response to the second 5 amended petition, which Mullner does not oppose.’ Good cause appearing, I grant the extension. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that THE STAY IS LIFTED, and the Clerk of Court is 7 directed to REOPEN THE FILE in this action. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibit under seal 9] [ECF No. 48] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time file a response to the second amended petition [ECF No. 52] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. The deadline to file the response is extended to February 19, 2024. Coes U.S. District fadeé Jennifer orsey Dated: February 14, 2024 See, e.g., Williams v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, 2:13-cv-00941-JAD-VCF, 2014 WL 3734287 at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2014); San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 7 ECF No. 52.