Pitrello v. Reubart

D. Nevada

Pitrello v. Reubart

DecidedMarch 3, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-00835

StatusUnknown

This text of Pitrello v. Reubart (Pitrello v. Reubart) 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

Pitrello v. Reubart, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Mary Elizabeth Pitrello, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00835-APG-EJY

4 Petitioner Order Granting Extension of Time to File 5 v. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss to April 29, 2025 and Granting Motion to Seal 6 G. Najera, et al.,

7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 51, 54]

9 The respondents ask for an extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to 10 dismiss Mary Elizabeth Pitrello’s amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. ECF No. 11 54. Good cause appearing, the motion is granted. 12 The petitioner has filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal. ECF No. 51. 13 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents, see Nixon 14 v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking to seal a judicial 15 record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the 16 public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 17 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the 18 records may be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, 19 the petitioner asks to file an expert report under seal because it contains private medical 20 information and other sensitive personal information. ECF No. 51. The court has reviewed the 21 report and concludes that the petitioner has demonstrated compelling reasons to file it under seal. 22 Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the expert report will remain under seal. 23 ] I THEREFORE ORDER that the respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time to 2|| file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss [ECF No. 54] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 3|| The deadline to reply is extended to April 29, 2025. 4 I FURTHER ORDER that the petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibit under seal [ECF No. 51] is GRANTED. The exhibit will remain under seal. 6 7 DATED this 3rd day of March, 2025. 8 9 10 _¢ Zo ANDREW P. GORDON 1] CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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 Mary Elizabeth Pitrello, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00835-APG-EJY

4 Petitioner Order Granting Extension of Time to File 5 v. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss to April 29, 2025 and Granting Motion to Seal 6 G. Najera, et al.,

7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 51, 54]

9 The respondents ask for an extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to 10 dismiss Mary Elizabeth Pitrello’s amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. ECF No. 11 54. Good cause appearing, the motion is granted. 12 The petitioner has filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal. ECF No. 51. 13 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents, see Nixon 14 v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking to seal a judicial 15 record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the 16 public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 17 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the 18 records may be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, 19 the petitioner asks to file an expert report under seal because it contains private medical 20 information and other sensitive personal information. ECF No. 51. The court has reviewed the 21 report and concludes that the petitioner has demonstrated compelling reasons to file it under seal. 22 Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the expert report will remain under seal. 23 ] I THEREFORE ORDER that the respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time to 2|| file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss [ECF No. 54] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 3|| The deadline to reply is extended to April 29, 2025. 4 I FURTHER ORDER that the petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibit under seal [ECF No. 51] is GRANTED. The exhibit will remain under seal. 6 7 DATED this 3rd day of March, 2025. 8 9 10 _¢ Zo ANDREW P. GORDON 1] CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pitrello v. Reubart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitrello-v-reubart-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack