Young v. Hutchings

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:12-cv-00524
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 DANNY ANDREW YOUNG, Case No. 2:12-cv-00524-RFB-NJK 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13 In this habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for good cause shown, 14 IT IS ORDERED that respondents’ unopposed motion for redaction of evidentiary 15 hearing transcript (ECF No. 100) is GRANTED consistent with the remaining provisions 16 herein, with the Court finding, in accordance with Local Rule LR IC 6-1 and the 17 requirements of Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), 18 and Kasza v. Whitman, 325 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2003), that a compelling need to 19 protect the privacy and personal identifying information of the then-minor by the narrowly 20 limited redactions outweighs the public interest in open access to court records, with 21 these privacy concerns continuing into adulthood as discussed in the Court’s prior order 22 (ECF No. 74 at 47 n.32). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court, with the assistance of the 24 Court Reporter as needed: (a) shall seal the original filing of the transcript docketed at 25 ECF No. 97, shall limit public access to same accordingly, and shall make corresponding 26 changes or additions to the docket entry reflecting the sealing and restriction on access 27 to the unredacted transcript; (b) shall file a redacted copy of the transcript with redactions 28 substantially corresponding to the redactions proposed in ECF 100, at 21 (transcript page 1|| 17), in a manner consistent with the customary practices of the Clerk and/or Court 2|| Reporter for such matters; (c) shall docket the redacted transcript under a new docket entry in the customary manner and with the standard provisos with regard to access to 4|| transcripts; and (d) finally, shall take such steps as in the Clerk’s and the Court Reporter’s 5|| discretion are necessary to ensure that general CM/ECF access to Exhibit A of ECF No. || 100 does not permit circumvention of the procedures for obtaining or viewing a copy of a 7|| transcript, including potentially striking or sealing said exhibit, again in the Clerk’s and the 8|| Reporter's discretion as to the exact manner of achieving that end. 9 DATED: October 22, 2020.

42 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28