Demissie v. Ford
2:25-cv-00504
| D. Nev. | Sep 8, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Demissie filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Default Judgment based on alleged fraud on the court; LVMPD defendants filed an opposition attaching Exhibits J–O and sought to file those exhibits under seal.
- Defendants (LVMPD, Officer West, Detective Lea) moved to seal the exhibits, asserting they are confidential under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order.
- The exhibits at issue were attached to an opposition to a motion seeking case-terminating relief (a dispositive outcome).
- The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s "compelling reasons" standard for sealing because the exhibits relate to a dispositive motion.
- The LVMPD Defendants relied on the protective order but did not make the particularized, compelling showing required to overcome the strong presumption of public access.
- The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice, ordered a revised motion to seal by a set deadline, and left the provisionally sealed documents sealed pending that renewed motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhibits attached to opposition to sanctions motion may be sealed | Public access should be maintained; plaintiff challenged sealing | Exhibits are confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order and should remain sealed | Denied without prejudice: defendants failed to show compelling reasons to seal |
| Applicable standard for sealing | (implicit) public has strong right of access | Protective order suffices to justify sealing | Court: "compelling reasons" standard applies because motion seeks dispositive relief; protective order alone is insufficient |
| Sufficiency of the defendants’ showing to seal | (implicit) opposing sealing absent particularized justification | Reliance on blanket confidentiality designation and protective order | Held insufficient—no particularized showing; blanket reliance rejected |
| Interim treatment of provisionally sealed documents | Plaintiff would have access if sealing denied | Defendants requested continued sealing | Court: documents remain provisionally sealed pending revised motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.) (compelling reasons required to seal documents attached to dispositive motions)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (protective orders and sealing requests require particularized showing of good cause)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. Supreme Court) (presumption of public access to judicial records and narrow categories warranting secrecy)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir.) (blanket stipulated protective orders are overbroad and do not by themselves establish good cause)