1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 VALERIE MCDONALD, 7 Case No. 2:22-cv-01379-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 24] EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10 INC., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal her application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis that has been on the public docket for two years now. Docket No. 24; see also Docket 14 No. 1 (application to proceed in forma pauperis). 15 There is a strong presumption in favor of the public’s access to judicial filings. See, e.g., 16 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Documents filed in 17 relation to a non-dispositive matter may not be sealed absent a particularized showing of good 18 cause. Id. at 1180.1 19 While some financial information (such as an account number) warrants secrecy, see, e.g., 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(4), the Court has not located any such information in the underlying filing. 21 Even more significantly, the filing has already been on the public docket for two years and the 22 Court lacks the power to make secret information that is already public. See, e.g., Victory Sports 23 & Entertainment, LLC v. Pedraza,

, at *2 (D. Nev. June 24, 2019) (collecting 24 cases). 25 26

27 1 The fact that a sealing request may be unopposed does not automatically result in it being granted because the Court is tasked with protecting the public’s interest in transparency. Allegiant 28 Travel Co. v. Kinzer,

, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. July 19, 2022). ] Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to seal. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 9, 2024 4 7, — — Nancy J. Koppe 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28