Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cook v. Dzurenda, 3:19-cv-00081-MMD-CBC. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190405f71 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . The Court addresses herein several pending motions filed by Petitioner Brian Clay Cook in the above-captioned habeas corpus case. First, Petitioner has filed an unopposed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 19), which the Court grants. Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to file a first amended protective petition (ECF No. 11), and a motion for leave to file first amended protective petition and associated exhibits under seal (ECF No. 12)
More

ORDER

The Court addresses herein several pending motions filed by Petitioner Brian Clay Cook in the above-captioned habeas corpus case. First, Petitioner has filed an unopposed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 19), which the Court grants.

Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to file a first amended protective petition (ECF No. 11), and a motion for leave to file first amended protective petition and associated exhibits under seal (ECF No. 12). The Court will direct Respondents to respond to these motions. In particular, the Court is concerned about Petitioner's request not only to have exhibits to the first amended petition filed under seal, but also to have the first amended petition itself filed under seal, even though the initials of the minor children involved in the case are similar and, in some instances, identical. If the Court were to grant Petitioner's request, then any dispositive motions, the answer to the petition, the reply, and any dispositive order issued by the Court likely would need to be filed under seal as well. This is counter to the strong presumption of open public access to court filings. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); see also LR IC 6-1.

In addition, Petitioner has filed supporting documents under seal (ECF No. 13, 14, 16). In the certificates of service of these supporting documents, Petitioner states that counsel for Respondents will receive service of the documents electronically through the Court's CM/ECF system. However, the Court's review of the notices of electronic filing of those documents show that counsel for Respondents has not received the documents electronically. Petitioner will need to serve those documents to counsel for Respondents in some way other than through CM/ECF, and then Petitioner will need to certify service of the documents.

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's unopposed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 19) is granted. Petitioner will have through April 26, 2019, to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and the relevant financial documents.

It is further ordered that Petitioner must, within seven days from the date of entry of this order: (1) serve the sealed documents (ECF No. 13, 14, 16) upon counsel for Respondents in some way other than through CM/ECF; and (2) file a certificate of service to that effect in this Court.

It is further ordered that Respondents will have fourteen days from the date of service of the sealed documents (ECF No. 13, 14, 16) to file and serve responses to the motion for leave to file first amended protective petition (ECF No. 11), and the motion for leave to file first amended protective petition and associated exhibits under seal (ECF No. 12). Petitioner will have seven days after filing of each response to file a reply to that response.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer