United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Nevada prisoner Clay
Burgon, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
on April 11, 2017 (ECF No. 36).
with his amended petition, Burgon filed a motion for leave to
file certain exhibits under seal (ECF No. 38). In that
motion, Burgon requests leave of court to file under seal
copies of medical and mental health records related to
treatment that he received (Petitioner's Exhibits 68, 69,
70, 74 and 75), and a presentence investigation report
(Petitioner's Exhibit 73). There is a strong presumption
in favor of public access to judicial filings and documents.
See Nixon v. Warner Communication, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134
(9th Cir. 2003). However, the court has inherent power over
its own records and files, and access may be denied where the
court determines that the documents may be used for
“improper purposes.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at
598; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-34
(9th Cir. 1995); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Under
Nevada state law, a presentence investigation report is
confidential, and is not to be made part of a public record.
See NRS 176.156(5). In light of that state law, and
in light of the privacy concerns Burgon expresses with
respect to the presentence investigation report and the
medical and mental health records, the court finds that there
is good cause for these exhibits to be filed under seal.
also filed a motion (ECF No. 40) requesting a waiver, for
purposes of this case, of Local Rule IA 10-3(e), which
requires, with respect to the filing of exhibits, that the
cover sheet for each exhibit must include a descriptor of the
exhibit. The court finds that, in this habeas corpus action,
in light of the number of exhibits petitioner has filed,
there is good cause to waive the requirement that the cover
sheet for each exhibit include a descriptor of the exhibit.
response to Burgon's amended petition was due on May 11,
2017. See Order entered March 31, 2016 (ECF No. 24)
(30 days for response). On May 11, 2017, respondents filed a
motion for extension of time (ECF No. 41), requesting an
extension of 60 days, to July 10, 2017. Respondents'
counsel states that the extension of time is necessary
because of his obligations in other cases. This would be the
first extension of this deadline. Petitioner does not oppose
the motion for extension of time. The court finds that the
motion for extension of time is made in good faith, and not
solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause
for the extension of time requested. The court will grant
respondents' the 60-day extension of time. In addition,
the court will set a schedule for further proceedings beyond
respondents' response to the amended petition.
THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to
File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. Petitioner
is granted leave of court to file his Exhibits Number 68, 69,
70, 73, 74 and 75 under seal. As those exhibit have already
been filed under seal, no further action is necessary in this
FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Partially
Waive Local Rule IA 10-3(e) (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. For
purposes of this habeas corpus action, with respect to
exhibits filed by any party, the court waives the requirement
in Local Rule IA 10-3(e) that the cover sheet for each filed
exhibit must include a descriptor of the exhibit.
FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion for extension of
time (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until
and including July 10, 2017, to file a response to the
petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
FURTHER ORDERED that, following respondents' response to
the amended petition, the following schedule shall govern the
further proceedings in this case:
shall have 45 days following service of an answer to file and
serve a reply. Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days
following service of a reply to file and serve a response to
of Motion to Dismiss.
respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner shall have
60 days following service of the motion to file and serve a
response to the motion. Respondents shall thereafter have 30