Mahe v. Hartman et al
ORDER - Plaintiff Jason Mahe's Objection (ECF No. 24 ) is overruled. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/15/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JASON A. MAHE,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00069-MMD-WGC
HARTMAN, et al.,
On June 2, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ordered that pro
se Plaintiff Jason Mahe’s motion to seal Claim 2 of his first amended complaint (ECF No.
6 (“Motion)) be denied. (ECF No. 23 (“Order”).) Judge Cobb stayed the unsealing of Claim
2 to provide Mahe an opportunity to file an objection. (Id. at 4.) Mahe filed an objection
shortly thereafter on June 8, 2021. (ECF No. 24 (“Objection”).) The Court, finding no clear
error, overrules Mahe’s Objection.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order, the magistrate’s
factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095,
1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). A magistrate judge’s pretrial order issued under
§ 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo review, and the reviewing court “may not simply
substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951
F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
In his Objection, Mahe argues that if document evidence comes to light that he is a
confidential informant, then he will continue to be in substantial danger. (ECF No. 24 at 2.)
He further states that proof that he was a confidential informant are in embodied in “NDOC
grievance numbers” 2006-307-4707 and 2006-30-76628. (Id. at 3.) While the Court is
sympathetic to Mahe’s alleged situation, Mahe’s argument fails because Mahe has filed
several other motions in this action asserting that he was a confidential informant, and he
has not sought to seal those documents.
Moreover, Mahe merely provides the Court with grievance numbers but does not
provide the grievances themselves to support his assertions. It is not the Court’s
responsibility to locate these grievances and the burden of production is on Mahe.
Accordingly, and having reviewed the record in this case, the Court finds that Judge Cobb
did not err in denying Mahe’s Motion. For the reasons stated herein, the Court overrules
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Jason Mahe’s Objection (ECF No. 24) is
DATED THIS 15th Day of July 2021.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?