Rodriguez-Quezada v. Olsen ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JOSE RODRIGUEZ-QUEZADA, Case No. 3:23-cv-00130-MMD-CLB 7 Petitioner, ORDER 8 v. 9 KYLE OLSEN, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 Jose Rodriguez-Quezada’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus 13 is before the Court on motions by both parties. For the reasons discussed below, the 14 Court will grant both motions. 15 First, Rodriguez-Quezada has filed a motion for leave to file certain exhibits under 16 seal. (ECF No. 17.) While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings 17 and documents, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a 18 party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating 19 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. 20 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 21 In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper 22 purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Rodriguez-Quezada ask to 23 file his presentence investigation report (“PSI”) under seal because it is confidential under 24 state law. He also asks to file some of his medical records as well as some of the victim’s 25 medical records under seal in order to comply with federal medical records privacy rights 26 laws. The Court has reviewed the PSI and the medical records and concludes that 27 Respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the exhibits under seal. 1 |) /// 2 Second, Respondents have filed a motion for extension of time to file a response 3 || to the petition. (ECF No. 19.) Respondents explain that while they timely requested the 4 || trial court record from the Ninth Judicial District Court (Douglas County, Nevada), they 5 || have not yet received the record. The Court finds that the request is made in good faith 6 || and not solely for the purpose of delay, and therefore, good cause exists to grant the 7 || motion. 8 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal 9 || (ECF No. 17) is granted. The exhibits will remain under seal. 10 It is further ordered that Respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time to 11 || file a response to the petition (ECF No. 19) is granted nunc pro tunc. The deadline to file 12 || the response is extended to February 12, 2024. 13 DATED THIS 15" Day of December 2023. 14 16 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28