Rodney v. Baker et al

Filing 98

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the pending motions asking to file exhibits under seal (ECF Nos. 82 / 89 ) are GRANTED. The exhibits filed at ECF No. 83 and ECF No. 90 shall remain under seal. To the extent that respondents motion asks to file exhibits in camera, it is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/23/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

KYLE J. RODNEY,

6
7

v.

8

Case No. 3:13-cv-00323-RCJ
Petitioner,

ORDER

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

9

Respondents.

10
11

Both parties have filed motions asking to file exhibits under seal. ECF Nos. 82/89. 1 The

12
13

exhibits consist of medical records for Ralph Monko, the victim in this case. ECF Nos. 83/90.

14

The court agrees that protecting Mr. Monko’s privacy is a compelling reason to keep the

15

exhibits under seal. In addition, neither party responded either motion. See Local Rule, LSR 7-

16

2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion ...

17

constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”)

18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the pending motions asking to file exhibits under

19

seal (ECF Nos. 82/89) are GRANTED. The exhibits filed at ECF No. 83 and ECF No. 90 shall

20

remain under seal. To the extent that respondents’ motion asks to file exhibits in camera, it is

21

denied as moot.

22

DATED THIS 23rd day of September, 2022.

23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

Respondents’ motion also asks that the exhibits to be filed in camera, but it appears that petitioner’s
counsel already have copies of the exhibits. See ECF No. 97 at 5 (referencing exhibits filed at ECF No.
90).
1