R.E.R. v. Skorkowsky

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 R.E.R., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00984-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiffs Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Seal 6 v.

7 Clark County School District, et al., [ECF Nos. 51, 53, 54] 8 Defendants 9 10 On January 31, 2025, plaintiffs filed a petition for approval of minor’s compromise. ECF 11 Nos. 40; 44 (sealed).1 The court held a hearing on the petition on February 13, 2025. Mins. of 12 proceedings, ECF No. 47. For the reasons set forth on the record during that hearing, the court 13 found the proposed settlement as set forth in the petition to be fair and reasonable for both 14 minor plaintiffs and granted the petition in part, and deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ request for 15 attorney’s fees. See Order, ECF No. 48. In the order granting the petition in part, I ordered the 16 plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing in support of their requested attorney’s fees. Id. at 1, n. 2. 17 On March 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief. Supp. br., ECF No. 51; Errata, ECF 18 No. 54. In conjunction with the filing of the supplemental brief, plaintiffs moved to file 19 unredacted exhibits under seal.2 Mot. to seal, ECF No. 53. On March 31, 2025, the defendants 20 filed a response to the supplemental briefing. Resp., ECF No. 55. For the reasons set forth herein, 21 the court grants plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and motion to seal.

22 1 Plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal the petition (ECF No. 42) and a stipulation for an expedited ruling 23 on the petition and related filings (ECF No. 45). For the reasons stated on the record during the February 13, 2025, hearing on the petition for minors’ compromise, both motions are granted. 24 2 There is a “strong presumption” in favor of public access to judicial records, and a party seeking to seal judicial records must identify “compelling reasons” that outweigh the “public interest in understanding 25 the public process.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, plaintiffs seek to redact certain exhibits to protect the identifies of the plaintiffs. The court finds 26 the redactions are necessary to protect the identity of the plaintiffs, which include minors, so plaintiffs have provided a compelling reason to redact these documents, which outweighs the presumption favoring access to them. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172 (explaining the good-cause and compelling-reason standards for sealing judicial records and documents). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to seal is granted. 1 I. Discussion 2 As a threshold matter, I find that the plaintiffs complied with Local Rule 54-14, which 3 requires any application for attorney’s fees to include an attorney affidavit,3 “[a] reasonable 4 itemization and description of the work performed[,]” and “[a] brief summary” of thirteen 5 categories of information designed to elicit more information about the case and the work that 6 the attorney performed. LR 54-14(a). Indeed, plaintiffs’ supplemental brief addresses each of the 7 thirteen categories. See ECF No. 54 at 16–31. Based on the additional information provided by 8 plaintiffs, they have now met the requirements set forth in Local Rule 54-14 for seeking 9 attorney’s fees and provided the court enough information to evaluate the requested fees 10 applying the Brunzell4 factors. 11 The court does take note, however, of the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ 12 supplemental brief and errata. Resp., ECF No. 55. Therein, the defendants note the filing is not 13 an attempt to undermine the agreement between the parties, but rather was filed to clarify the 14 record. Id. at 2–3. As explained by the defendants, by entering into the settlement with the 15 plaintiffs, they neither admitted nor conceded liability on any claim, nor conceded that the 16 named defendants were the appropriate parties to the litigation. Id. Rather, the settlement was 17 “settled prior to trial and prior to Plaintiffs’ proof obligations as to liability under any legal 18 theory,” id. at 2, and further, as stated in the settlement itself, the agreement was “intended to 19 settle the litigation of [the] injury without further expense and without admission to Plaintiffs’ 20 theories of liability . . . .” Id. at 3. For clarity, the court also notes that granting the plaintiffs’ 21 motion for attorney’s fees following the plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing neither changes the 22 explicit language of the settlement agreement, nor serves as a finding that: (1) plaintiffs 23 established liability for any claim, (2) defendants conceded liability for any claim, (3) defendants 24 conceded that their defenses were insufficient, or (4) the named defendants were properly 25 named by plaintiffs. 26 3 See Att’y affs., ECF Nos. 51-8, 51-9, 51-10. 4 Bruznell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969). III. Conclusion 2 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the prior order granting in part plaintiffs’ 3}| petition for minor’s compromise (ECF No. 48) is incorporated into this order. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clark County School District is ordered to pay $3,800,000.00 in attorney’s fees, within thirty days of this order, made payable to Sgro & Roger, 6|| Attorneys at Law, which represents forty percent of R.E.R.’s gross recovery, pursuant to a 7|| contingency fee agreement between Sgro & Roger, Attorneys at Law and plaintiffs. 8 IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to seal [ECF No. 53] is 9|| GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the seal on Exhibits 1 and 2 in support of 10] plaintiffs’ supplemental brief (ECF Nos. 52, 52-1, 52-3), until further order of the court. u Dated: July 21, 2025 J, / 12 LL B ale 4 my tates District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26