Smith v. Dockery

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 Marc Henry Smith, Case No. 2:20-cv-02261-JAD-BNW 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER re ECF No. 18 v. 11 Randy Dockery, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal. ECF No. 18. No opposition has been 15 filed. 16 I. Legal Standard 17 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 18 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 19 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 20 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 21 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 22 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 23 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (alteration and internal 24 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 25 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 26 documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 27 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 1 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good 2 || cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion that 3 || are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 4 || 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Nondispositive 5 || motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and, 6 || as aresult, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal 7 || force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 8 || 1179). 9 Here, Defendants seek to file the video and audio recordings attached to their motion for 10 || summary judgment under seal. They explain that these exhibits contain personal identifying 11 || information, including dates of birth and social security numbers, and that they have no capability 12 || of redacting this information from the recordings. 13 The exhibits in question are related to a dispositive motion. Accordingly, the compelling 14 || reason standard applies. Based on the argument provided, the Court finds compelling reasons 15 || exist to seal these exhibits as the information in question include dates of birth and social security 16 || numbers. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 18) is 18 || GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one week of this Order, Defendants shall 20 || provide a copy of Exhibits D, E, K, L, and M to the Clerk of Court, who shall maintain them 21 || under seal. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide a copy of these Exhibits to Judge 23 || Dorsey (in the event they have not already done so) within one week of this Order. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for February 10, 2022 is vacated. 25 26 DATED: January 7, 2021. 27 Gu Les BRENDA WEKSLER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE