Graves v. Nye County
2:20-cv-02359
D. Nev.Mar 28, 2022Background
- Wrongful-death suit after Nekiylo Graves drove through the gate at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and was shot/killed by SOC Nevada employees Te’Quis Harris and John Kakavulias during a vehicle pursuit. Plaintiffs are Graves’s estate and next of kin.
- Plaintiffs sued Nye County, Kakavulias, SOC, and Harris asserting multiple causes of action.
- SOC and Harris (the “SOC Defendants”) moved for a blanket protective order for discovery, citing DOE/NNSA Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) and related access restrictions; Nye County joined.
- Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the SOC Defendants lack standing, seek to stonewall discovery, and failed to meet protective-order standards.
- SOC Defendants also moved to seal portions of a dismissal motion and exhibits marked “Official Use Only” by NNSA; Plaintiffs did not respond.
- The magistrate judge granted the blanket protective order (to be refiled for approval) and granted the motion to seal, finding the blanket order appropriately facilitates discovery and that national-security concerns and lack of opposition supported sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a blanket protective order for discovery should be entered | SOC order is a cover to withhold discovery; insufficient particularized showing | Blanket protective order facilitates exchange of sensitive discovery (UCNI) and need not meet sealing standard | Granted: blanket protective order appropriate to facilitate discovery |
| Whether SOC Defendants have standing to seek protection for DOE interests | SOC lacks standing to assert DOE’s interests | SOC need not litigate DOE rights; order is procedural and imposes designation/challenge process | Held for SOC: standing argument misapplies analysis; order does not adjudicate DOE rights |
| Whether a blanket protective order improperly limits public access to judicial records | Order would impede public access and court transparency | Blanket protective orders govern out-of-court discovery, to which the public has no right of access | Rejected: blanket protective order does not seal court records or restrict public access to judicial records |
| Whether sealing documents marked “Official Use Only” meets Ninth Circuit’s standard | Plaintiffs did not oppose; argued generally for access | NNSA markings and national-security sensitivity create compelling reasons; SOC contractors prohibited from disclosure without approval | Granted: compelling national-security reasons and lack of opposition support sealing |
Key Cases Cited
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (protective orders require a particularized showing)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (sealing judicial records requires compelling reasons)
- Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating compelling-reason sealing standard)
- Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. F.B.I., 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (national-security concerns can justify sealing)