King v. Baker, 3:18-CV-00202-RCJ-WGC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190419j85
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Before the Court is petitioner's motion to seal various exhibits filed with his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 25). Respondents have not responded, and the time for doing so has expired. Petitioner seeks to seal seven exhibits. Five contain confidential medical and mental health information (Exhs. 95-97 & 99-100). One is the petitioner's presentence investigation report, which is a confidential document. (Exh. 98). And the seven
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Before the Court is petitioner's motion to seal various exhibits filed with his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 25). Respondents have not responded, and the time for doing so has expired. Petitioner seeks to seal seven exhibits. Five contain confidential medical and mental health information (Exhs. 95-97 & 99-100). One is the petitioner's presentence investigation report, which is a confidential document. (Exh. 98). And the sevent..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Before the Court is petitioner's motion to seal various exhibits filed with his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 25). Respondents have not responded, and the time for doing so has expired.
Petitioner seeks to seal seven exhibits. Five contain confidential medical and mental health information (Exhs. 95-97 & 99-100). One is the petitioner's presentence investigation report, which is a confidential document. (Exh. 98). And the seventh is a declaration by petitioner that he asserts could subject him and his family "to the threat of physical harm." (ECF No. 25 at 4; Exh. 101).
In accordance with the requirements of Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that a compelling need to protect the privacy and/or personal identifying information of petitioner in the sealed exhibits outweighs the public interest in open access to court records. The motion for leave to file Exhibits 95-101 under seal (ECF No. 25) is therefore granted, and those exhibits are considered properly filed under seal.
Source: Leagle
