R.E.R., et al. v. Pat Skorkowsky, et al.

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA R.E.R., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00984-CDS-NJK

Plaintiffs Order Granting the Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact and Seal v.

Pat Skorkowsky, et al., [ECF No. 66]

Defendants

The court previously granted in part the plaintiffs’ petition for minor’s compromise and ordered Clark County School District to pay attorney’s fees. Orders, ECF Nos. 48, 62. The plaintiffs now move to seal the verifications attached to their motion for disbursement of funds.1 ECF No. 66. For the reasons explained herein, I grant the plaintiffs’ motion to seal.2 I. Discussion “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Thus, “compelling reasons” must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The plaintiffs filed a motion to seal because they are trying to protect the plaintiffs’ identities. ECF No. 66 at 3. The plaintiffs contend that both verifications attached to their motion to disburse funds from the Minor’s Blocked Trust Account (V.R. and D.R.) include the plaintiffs’ entire names. Id. at 4. The plaintiffs further assert that they have taken steps to ensure that only information related to the plaintiffs’ names has been redacted. Id. The plaintiffs ask the

1 Upon review of the plaintiffs’ motion, I do not require a response from the defendants related to the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. 2 This order only resolves the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. A separate order will issue resolving the plaintiffs’ motion for disbursement (ECF No. 68) in ordinary course. court to grant their motion to file a redacted petition to disburse funds from the minor’s blocked trust account and file an unredacted petition under seal. 3 Here, the plaintiffs seek to redact the documents in order to protect the identities of the plaintiffs. I find the redactions are necessary to protect the identity of the plaintiffs, which include minors, so the plaintiffs have provided good cause to redact the documents, which 6 outweighs the presumption favoring access to them. Kamkana, 447 F.3d at 1178-81 (explaining 7 that the good-cause and compelling reason standards for sealing judicial records and 8 documents). Accordingly, I find that the public will still have access to most of the contents and that the balance of interests favors sealing the unredacted document at issue so I grant the plaintiffs’ motion. 1} II. Conclusion IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the petition to disburse under seal and with the minors’ names redacted [ECF No. 66] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to maintain the seal ope 0. 67. Dated: July 13, 2026 Lf __f gn Cristina D/Silva Iv Unit | States District Judge