1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 DANIEL DEMISSIE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00504-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 AARON D. FORD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS 8 METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (METRO), DETECTIVE GABRIEL LEA 9 (#16511), OFFICER BROOKS WEST (#16134), CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, 10 INC., FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AND 11 JOHN DOE, FLAMINGO ASSISTANT SECURITY SHIFT MANAGER, 12 Defendants. 13 14 Pending before the Court is Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Officer Brooks West 15 and Detective Gabriel Lea’s (“LVMPD Defendants”) Motion to Seal Exhibits Contained in Motion 16 for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 131. The LVMPD Defendants seek to seal Exhibits C and D. Id. 17 at 1. Also pending before the Court is Caesars Entertainment Inc. and Flamingo Las Vegas 18 Operating Company, LLC’s, (“Caesar Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits 19 to its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 135. Specifically, the Caesar Defendants’ Motion 20 to Seal relates to Exhibit A-G. Id. at 1. The Court has reviewed the Motions to Seal as well as 21 Plaintiff’s Responses (ECF Nos. 146 and 147) and finds as follows. 22 As the parties seeking to seal judicial records, Defendants must meet their burden of 23 overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring 24 disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) 25 (holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions 26 must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). The mere fact 27 that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 1 Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). Compelling reasons require a demonstration of 2 something more, such as when court files have become a vehicle for improper purposes, including 3 use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, disseminate libelous statements, or 4 circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

(1978). 5 The LVMPD Defendants’ Motion seeks to seal two exhibits compiling body camera footage 6 of active-duty officers. ECF No. 131 at 4. The LVMPD Defendants explain there are compelling 7 reasons to seal because the exhibits contain sensitive personal information of the officers and cites 8 NRS 289.025.

The Court recognizes it has adjudicated sealing these exhibits before (ECF Nos. 9 89 and 105) and finds compelling reasons continue to justify sealing the footage. 10 With respect to the Caesar Defendants’ Motion, it seeks to seal Exhibit A containing 11 surveillance footage from Flamingo Las Vegas cameras which shows public and restricted portions 12 of the property. ECF No. 135 at 3. Additionally, the Caesar Defendants move to seal Exhibits B-G 13 consisting of body camera footage showing public and restricted portions of Flamingo Las Vegas 14 and the names and likeness of LVMPD officers. Id. at 3-4. The Caesar Defendants submit there are 15 compelling reasons to justify sealing because portions of the footage falls within the protections of 16 NRS 289.025 and public dissemination of the footage could be utilized by bad actors to learn how 17 to avoid detection. Id. In Response, Plaintiff argues there are no compelling reasons to seal because 18 the footage does not reveal trade secrets or proprietary information. To the contrary, the Court finds 19 the Caesar Defendants have demonstrated the view captured by the surveillance cameras is 20 proprietary and otherwise appropriately not disclosed to the general public. The Court finds there 21 are compelling reasons to seal the exhibits based on the sensitive information contained therein. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LVMPD Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits 23 Contained in Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 131) is GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits C and D filed manually with the Court (see ECF 25 No. 130) are and shall remain sealed. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Caesar Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under 27 Seal (ECF No. 135) is GRANTED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G filed manually with the 2 Court (see ECF No. 136) are and shall remain sealed. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these exhibits, if not already produced to Plaintiff, must 4 be served on Plaintiff. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is not to disclose these exhibits to anyone for 6 any purpose other than in relation to this litigation—meaning solely to support or in response to 7 motion practice and/or in discovery propounded on Defendants. If Plaintiff submits any one or more 8 of these exhibits to the Court, such exhibits or exhibits must be filed under seal. 9 Dated this 1 7th day of December, 2025. 10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27