Rodriguez v. Henley
This text of Rodriguez v. Henley (Rodriguez v. Henley) 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.
Opinion
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 JEFFREY RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00182-MMD-CLB
7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8
9 JOHN HENLEY, et al.,
10 Respondents.
11 12 Before the Court is Petitioner Jeffrey Rodriguez’s Motion for Discovery, in which 13 Rodriguez requests a copy of his evidentiary hearing transcript from January 17, 2023. 14 (ECF No. 19 (“Motion for Discovery”).) After the filing of the Motion for Discovery, 15 Respondents filed Rodriguez’s entire state court record. (See ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24.) 16 The January 17, 2023, evidentiary hearing transcript was included in these records at 17 exhibit 162. (ECF No. 24-12.) As such, Rodriguez’s Motion for Discovery is moot. 18 Also before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to File Under Seal. (ECF No. 25 19 (“Motion to Seal”).) Respondents seek leave to file the following document under seal: 20 Exhibit 58, Rodriguez’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 26-1), dated 21 August 13, 2014. (Id.) Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be made 22 a part of any public record.” NRS § 176.156(5). Having reviewed and considered the 23 matter in accordance with Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th 24 Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds that a compelling need to protect Rodriguez’s 25 safety, privacy, and/or personal identifying information outweighs the public interest in 26 open access to court records. 27 It is therefore ordered that the Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 19) is denied as 1 It is further ordered that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 25) is granted. Exhibit 58 2 || (ECF No. 26-1) is considered properly filed under seal. 3 It is further ordered that Rodriguez has until February 27, 2025, to file his response 4 || to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28), but he may request additional time to do so if 5 || needed. 6 DATED THIS 13" Day of February 2025. 7
9 MIRANDAM.DU.. ~~ 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rodriguez v. Henley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-henley-nvd-2025.