Bousley v. Neven et al
Filing
15
ORDER Granting 7 MOTION to Seal Presentence Report. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/6/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
ANTOINE BOUSLEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
D.W. NEVEN, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
2:11-cv-01751-GMN-GWF
ORDER
9
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
10
11
by a Nevada state prisoner.
12
On March 14, 2012, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 4).
13
Concurrent with the filing of the motion to dismiss, respondents brought a motion for leave file a
14
document under seal. (ECF No. 7). Respondents seek to file under seal a presentence report
15
containing confidential information regarding petitioner, and filed the presentence report under seal
16
for in camera review. (ECF No. 8).
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings and documents. See
17
18
Nixon v. Warner Communication, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and
19
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
20
331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). The court has inherent power over its own records and files,
21
and access may be denied where the court determines that the documents may be used for improper
22
purposes.” Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. at 598; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430,
23
1433-34 (9th Cir. 1995); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.
24
2006).
25
26
The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between dispositive and nondispositive pleadings and
motions in terms of the showing required to seal a document. For a document filed with a
1
dispositive motion, “compelling reasons” must be shown to justify sealing the document. Kamakana
2
v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d at 1179-89. In contrast, for documents filed with non-
3
dispositive motions, a “good cause” showing will suffice to keep the records sealed. Id. This is
4
based on the reasoning that the public has less need for access to records that are merely tangentially
5
related to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179. A showing of good cause generally requires a
6
specific description of the particular document(s) sought to be sealed and a showing that disclosure
7
of such documents would work a “clearly defined and serious injury.” Pansy v. Borough of
8
Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 776 (3rd Cir. 1994). Where good cause is shown for a protective order, the
9
court must balance the potential harm to the moving party’s interests against the public’s right to
10
11
access the court files. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d at 1179-89.
The presentence report of petitioner was submitted in support of respondents’ motion to
12
dismiss. (ECF No. 8). The motion to dismiss is a dispositive motion and therefore respondents must
13
show “compelling reasons” to keep the document sealed. Kamakana v. City and County of
14
Honolulu, 447 F.3d at 1179-89. In the instant case, the presentence report contains confidential
15
information concerning petitioner, as defined under NRS 176.156. On balance, the potential harm to
16
both respondents’ and petitioner’s interests outweighs the public’s right to access the presentence
17
report. Respondents have made an adequate showing of compelling reasons to keep the presentence
18
report of petitioner sealed. Accordingly, the Court grants respondents’ motion to seal petitioner’s
19
presentence report. The presentence report, which was submitted for in camera review at ECF No.
20
8, will remain sealed.
21
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to seal petitioner’s presentence
22
report (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall keep petitioner’s presentence report
23
(ECF No. 8) under seal.
24
Dated this 6th day of April, 2012.
25
26
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?