Moore v. Oliver

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA James Lamont Moore, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00774-JAD-MDC 4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Seal and v. Granting Extension to File Response to Petition to October 1, 2024 Warden Williams, et al., 7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 14, 17] 9 Respondents ask for an extension to file a response to James Lamont Moore’s pro se 28 10 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 Good cause appearing, I grant that motion.

11 They also ask to file an exhibit under seal.2 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents,3 a party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.4 In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper purposes.5 Here, respondents ask to file Moore’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) under seal because it contains confidential information that, under Nevada law, cannot be made part of any public record. I have reviewed the report and conclude that respondents have demonstrated ECF No. 17.

21 2 ECF No. 14.

3 See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

4 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

5 Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). compelling reasons to file it under seal. So I grant the motion, and the PSI will remain under seal.

3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to September 10, 2024. The deadline to file the response is extended to October 1, 2024.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for leave to file exhibit under seal 7\| [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on 8]| ECF No. 15. : US. District Fade jemtisp A. Dorse 10 September 18, □□□□