Yaag v. LeGrand et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying ECF No. 47 Motion for clerk to present correspondence to his counsel; granting ECF No. 50 Motion to File an Exhibit Under Seal; granting ECF No. 53 Motion for an Enlargement of Time to file; Respondents to file a response to the Amended Petition by 11/9/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DONALD STEVEN YAAG,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:14-cv-00295-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14
15

This represented habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court

16

on petitioner’s in proper person motion for the Clerk to present correspondence to his

17

counsel (ECF No. 47), petitioner’s counseled motion to file an exhibit under seal (ECF

18

No. 50), and respondents’ motion for an enlargement of time (ECF No. 53).

19

Petitioner’s proper person motion will be denied. Petitioner needs to protect the

20

confidentiality of his communications with counsel in order to preserve attorney-client and

21

other privileges. He cannot do so by filing communications with counsel in the record in

22

this matter and/or by trying to communicate with counsel through the Court or Clerk. While

23

clients often become frustrated with attorneys’ failure to communicate with them as timely

24

and as often as they would like, this failure often results from the fact that the attorneys

25

are busy trying to do the work required to represent their clients. In all events, petitioner

26

cannot communicate with counsel through the Clerk.

27
28

The remaining motions will be granted as per the remaining disposition paragraphs
of this order.

1
2

It therefore is ordered that petitioner’s in proper person motion (ECF No. 47) for
the Clerk to present correspondence to his counsel is denied.

3

It further is ordered that petitioner’s counseled motion to file an exhibit under seal

4

(ECF No. 50) is granted, with the Court finding, in accordance with the requirements of

5

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), that a

6

compelling need to protect the medical privacy and/or personal identifying information of

7

petitioner, the victim, and potentially others with regard to the sealed exhibit outweighs

8

the public interest in open access to court records.

9

It further is ordered that respondents’ motion for an enlargement of time (ECF No.

10

53) is granted and the time for respondents to file a response to the amended petition is

11

extended up to and including November 9, 2017.

12

DATED THIS 11th day of October 2017.

13
14
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2