Smith v. Dockery et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting 18 Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one week of this Order, Defendants shall provide a copy of Exhibits D, E, K, L, and M to the Clerk of Court, who shall maintain them under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 1/7/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:20-cv-02261-JAD-BNW Document 22 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

Marc Henry Smith,
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER re ECF No. 18
v.

11
12

Case No. 2:20-cv-02261-JAD-BNW

Randy Dockery, et al.,
Defendants.

13

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal. ECF No. 18. No opposition has been

14
15

filed.

16

I.

Legal Standard

17

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

18

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly

19

accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

20

overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to

21

seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

22

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

23

public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (alteration and internal

24

quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full

25

presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached

26

documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the

27

case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

28

Case 2:20-cv-02261-JAD-BNW Document 22 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

1

Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good

2

cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion that

3

are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n,

4

605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Nondispositive

5

motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and,

6

as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal

7

force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

8

1179).

9

Here, Defendants seek to file the video and audio recordings attached to their motion for

10

summary judgment under seal. They explain that these exhibits contain personal identifying

11

information, including dates of birth and social security numbers, and that they have no capability

12

of redacting this information from the recordings.

13

The exhibits in question are related to a dispositive motion. Accordingly, the compelling

14

reason standard applies. Based on the argument provided, the Court finds compelling reasons

15

exist to seal these exhibits as the information in question include dates of birth and social security

16

numbers.

17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 18) is
GRANTED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one week of this Order, Defendants shall

20

provide a copy of Exhibits D, E, K, L, and M to the Clerk of Court, who shall maintain them

21

under seal.

22
23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide a copy of these Exhibits to Judge
Dorsey (in the event they have not already done so) within one week of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for February 10, 2022 is vacated.

25
26

DATED: January 7, 2021.

27
28

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2