Vardan Gukasian v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01697
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:25-cv-01697-JAD-DJA Vardan Gukasian, 4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Seal 5 v. [ECF No. 17] 6 Kristi Noem, et al.,

7 Respondents

8 Petitioner Vardan Gukasian moves to seal medical records attached to his motion for a 9 temporary-restraining order.1 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 10 and documents including judicial records and documents.’”2 “Although the common law right 11 of access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 12 records.’”3 A party seeking to seal judicial records attached to dispositive motions like the 13 injunction motions at issue here4 can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing 14

15 1 ECF No. 17. This is Gukasian’s second attempt to seal these documents—I previously denied without prejudice an earlier attempt because his attorney failed to comply with Local Rule IA 16 10-5(c) and the Ninth Circuit’s standards for sealing judicial records. ECF No. 7 at 3–4. I also note that the sealing motion purports to be an ex parte one, though it was served on the other 17 parties. See ECF No. 17 at 1 (“Vardan Gukasian’s Renewed Ex Parte Application” to seal); ECF No. 17-5 (certificate of service indicating that the motion and exhibits were served on the 18 defendants). Counsel for Gukasian is advised that “ex parte” means that the document “is filed with the court but is not served on the opposing or other parties.” L.R. IA 7-2(a). Ex parte 19 motions are not allowed unless “specifically permitted by court order or the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure.” L.R. IA 7-2(b). Counsel is advised to cease labeling documents 20 as “ex parte” if they are not, in fact, ex parte. Because additional requirements must be met to file a true ex parte motion, continued mislabeling may result in motions being erroneously 21 denied. 2 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 22 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 3 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 23 4 For sealing purposes, the Ninth Circuit considers dispositive any motion that “is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. “sufficiently compelling reasons” that override the public policies favoring disclosure.* “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must balance the competing interests of 3] the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records” and “articulate a factual basis for each 4|| compelling reason to seal.”® 5 I have reviewed the exhibits attached to Gukasian’s motion and conclude that there are compelling reasons to seal them. They contain Gukasian’s personal medical information, and his 7\| interest in keeping that information private outweighs the public’s interest in accessing judicial 8||records. So I grant Gukasian’s motion to seal. 9 Conclusion 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Vardan Gukasian’s motion to seal [ECF 17] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF Nos. 6 and 17. 13 LYNZ. 14 sf A) YS U.S. Distrs lge Jennife Dorsey 15 Octdset 7, 2025 16 17 18 19 20

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Gukasian’s injunction motion meets that definition. > In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1118; see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). ® In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (citations omitted).