1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 PAMELA ERWIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00697-ART-NJK

6 Petitioner, ORDER

7 v.

8 WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,

9 Respondents.

10 11 In this habeas corpus action, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on 12 April 16, 2025. (ECF No. 38.) Erwin was to file a response to the motion to 13 dismiss by June 16, 2025. (See ECF No. 12 (60 days for response to motion to 14 dismiss).) On June 13, Erwin filed a motion for extension of time, requesting a 15 45-day extension, to July 31. (ECF No. 42.) On July 21, Erwin filed a response 16 to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 43.) Erwin’s counsel states that the extension 17 was necessary because of their obligations in other cases, and that Respondents 18 did not oppose the motion. The Court finds that Erwin’s motion for extension of 19 time was made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that 20 there was good cause for the extension. The Court will grant Erwin’s motion and 21 treat Erwin’s response to the motion to dismiss as timely filed. Respondents’ 22 reply is due August 20, 2025. (See ECF No. 12 (30 days for reply in support of 23 motion to dismiss).) 24 On April 16, 2025, Respondents filed a motion requesting leave of court to 25 file an exhibit—their Exhibit 10 (ECF No. 39-1), a presentence investigation 26 report—under seal. (ECF No. 38.) While there is a strong presumption in favor of 27 public access to judicial filings, and while courts prefer that the public retain 28 access to them, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,

, 597 1 || (1978), a court may seal its records if a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” 2 || to do so. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178-79 (9th 3 || Cir. 2006). “Compelling reasons” exist where the records could be used for 4 || improper purposes. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon,

). 5 || Under Nevada law, presentence investigation reports are confidential, and are 6 || not to be made part of a public record. See NRS 176.156(5). The presentence 7 || investigation report filed by Respondents contains information that could be 8 || used for improper purposes. In view of the state law and considering the nature 9 || of the information in the presentence investigation report, the Court finds that 10 || there are compelling reasons for the exhibit in question to be filed under seal. 11 || The Court will grant Respondents’ motion. 12 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF 13 || No. 42) is granted. Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 43) will 14 || be treated as timely filed. In all other respects, the schedule for further 15 || proceedings set forth in the scheduling order entered December 1, 2023 (ECF 16 || No. 12) will remain in effect. Respondents’ reply in support of the motion to 17 || dismiss is due August 20, 2025. 18 It is further ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 19 || Under Seal (ECF No. 38) is granted. Respondents are granted leave of court to 20 || file their Exhibit 10 under seal. As that exhibit has already been filed under seal 21 || (ECF No. 39-1), no further action is necessary in this regard. 22 DATED THIS 22"4 day of July, 2025. 23 ee 34 Ares plot? 25 ANNER.TRAUM 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28