Fritz v. Breitenbach

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA GREGORY A. FRITZ, Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-ART-CLB 4 Petitioner, ORDER 5 v. NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, et al., 7 Respondents.

9 In this habeas corpus action, on January 23, 2005, the respondents filed a motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF No. 41), and on that same date they filed under seal the exhibits that are the subject of that motion, which are their Exhibits 3, 14, 83, and 85 (ECF No. 42). The petitioner, Gregory A. Fritz, who is represented by appointed counsel, did not respond to the motion.

14 While there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings, and while courts prefer that the public retain access them, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a court may seal its records if a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” to do so. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper purposes.

20 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The exhibits in question include records regarding a minor victim of crime, medical records, and presentence investigation reports. There is good cause for those exhibits to be filed under seal.

24 /// /// /// /// /// 1 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibits || Under Seal (ECF No. 41) is granted. Respondents have filed under seal the || exhibits that are the subject of their motion (ECF No. 42). No further action is || required.

5 Dated this 18 day of February, 2025. ° Yrs jlosead 7 ANNE R. TRAUM 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE