Picozzi v. Nash

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * MARK PICOZZI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01011-ART-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al.

8 Defendants.

10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal. Defendants seek to file Exhibit A to their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause under seal. ECF Nos. 342, 344. The Court notes the Motion at ECF No. 344 is an exact duplicate of the Motion at ECF No. 342.

14 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record Defendants must meet their burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure.

16 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). Importantly, medical privacy meets the compelling reason standard. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1-2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D. Haw. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed, which are medical records. The Court therefore finds Exhibit A is properly sealed.

26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 342) is GRANTED.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 344) is an exact duplicate of ECF No. 342, and on this basis is struck from the docket.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit A (ECF No. 345) is and shall remain sealed.

4 DATED this 4th day of August, 2025.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE