1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ERIC CINA, Case No. 3:23-CV-00384-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

6 v. [ECF No. 44]

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9

10 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal in 11 support of their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) 12 “The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 13 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 14 Serv. v. Planet,

(9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 15 Brown,

(7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this 16 right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and 17 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. United States v. Bus. of Custer 18 Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 21 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the 22 party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 23 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). The 24 choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for 25 sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 26 case.

. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard 27 applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety,

. 28 Here, Defendants seek to file an exhibit under seal in connection with the motion 1| for summary judgment, which are “more than tangentially related” to the merits of a case. Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. 3 Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it 4| finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 5 | on hypothesis or conjecture.” United States v. Carpenter,

(9th Cir. 6 | 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety,

) (alteration in original). Finding 7 | acompelling reason is “best left to the sound discretion” of the court. Cér. for Auto Safety,

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). 9 Here, the referenced exhibit contains the Lovelock Correctional Center’s 10 | Operational Procedure, which relates to the steps and procedures the prison takes prior 11 to conducting searches, how information is gathered for cell searches, and other 12 operation procedures. (See ECF No. 44 at 2.) Defendants assert that public access to 13 | this exhibit would increase risk that offenders may learn some of these procedures, which prison officials rely upon to maintain safety and security of the facility. (/d.) Courts 15 generally defer to the judgement of prison officials in the matters of security. Bell v. Wolfish,

(1979). See also Norwood v. Vance,

(9' Cir. 2009). Balancing the need for the public’s access to information against the need to maintain the confidentiality of the exhibit which protects the safety and security of the 19 | institution and Plaintiff, the Court finds that these competing interests weigh in favor of 20 sealing the exhibit. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to seal, (ECF No. 44), is GRANTED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 99 DATED: November 7, 2025 ‘

23 oA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28