William Martin v. Nethanjah Breitenbach

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 WILLIAM MARTIN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00235-ART-CLB

6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, 8 Respondent. 9 10 Before this Court is Petitioner William Martin’s unopposed motion for a 45- 11 day extension of time to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) 12 This is Martin’s first request for an extension of this deadline. The Court finds 13 that good cause exists to grant the motion. 14 Also before the Court is Respondents’ motion to seal exhibits. (ECF No. 27). 15 Respondents seeks leave to file 2 exhibits under seal: Martin’s Presentence 16 Investigation Report (ECF No. 28-1) and Martin’s Supplemental Presentence 17 Investigation Report (ECF No. 28-2.) Having reviewed and considered the matter 18 in accordance with Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th 19 Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds that a compelling need to protect 20 Martin’s safety, privacy, and/or personal identifying information outweighs the 21 public interest in open access to court records. 22 It is therefore ordered that the unopposed motion for extension of time (ECF 23 No. 31) is granted. Martin has up to and including February 12, 2026, to file his 24 opposition. 25 It is further ordered that the motion to seal exhibits (ECF No. 27) is granted. 26 Exhibits 32 and 33 (ECF Nos. 28-1 and 28-2) are considered properly filed under 27 seal. 28 1 DATED THIS 7th day of January 2026.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28