Stott v. Dzurenda

D. Nevada

Stott v. Dzurenda

DecidedSeptember 16, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00133

StatusUnknown

This text of Stott v. Dzurenda (Stott v. Dzurenda) 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

Stott v. Dzurenda, (D. Nev. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 PHILIP STOTT, Case No. 3:19-cv-00133-MMD-WGC 4 Petitioner, ORDER 5 V.

6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Respondents. 8 This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File 9 || Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 24). Respondents seek leave to file under seal two exhibits 10 || in support of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8): Petitioner's Confidential Psychological 11 || and Substance Evaluation (ECF No. 25-1); and Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) 12 || (ECF No. 25-2). Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be made a part 13 || of any public record.” NRS § 176.156(5). In addition, the need to protect medical privacy 14 || generally qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records in connection with a 15 || dispositive motion. E.g., Abbey v. Hawaii Emp’rs Mut. Ins. Co. (HEMIC), 760 F. Supp. 2d 16 || 1005, 1013 (D. Haw. 2010); see also NRS § 433A.715(1) (requiring courts to seal records 17 || related to mental health treatment). 18 Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with Kamakana v. City 19 || and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds 20 || that a compelling need to protect Petitioner's safety, medical privacy, and/or personal 21 || identifying information outweighs the public interest in open access to court records. 22 || Accordingly, the Motion (ECF No. 24) is granted, and the exhibits (ECF No. 25) are 23 || considered properly filed under seal. 24 DATED THIS 16!" day of September 2019.

26 MIRANDA MLDU 57 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 PHILIP STOTT, Case No. 3:19-cv-00133-MMD-WGC 4 Petitioner, ORDER 5 V.

6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Respondents. 8 This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File 9 || Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 24). Respondents seek leave to file under seal two exhibits 10 || in support of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8): Petitioner's Confidential Psychological 11 || and Substance Evaluation (ECF No. 25-1); and Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) 12 || (ECF No. 25-2). Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be made a part 13 || of any public record.” NRS § 176.156(5). In addition, the need to protect medical privacy 14 || generally qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records in connection with a 15 || dispositive motion. E.g., Abbey v. Hawaii Emp’rs Mut. Ins. Co. (HEMIC), 760 F. Supp. 2d 16 || 1005, 1013 (D. Haw. 2010); see also NRS § 433A.715(1) (requiring courts to seal records 17 || related to mental health treatment). 18 Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with Kamakana v. City 19 || and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds 20 || that a compelling need to protect Petitioner's safety, medical privacy, and/or personal 21 || identifying information outweighs the public interest in open access to court records. 22 || Accordingly, the Motion (ECF No. 24) is granted, and the exhibits (ECF No. 25) are 23 || considered properly filed under seal. 24 DATED THIS 16!" day of September 2019.

26 MIRANDA MLDU 57 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stott v. Dzurenda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stott-v-dzurenda-nvd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack