Otis Holland v. John Henley, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada partially grants and partially denies Respondents’ motion to seal the case in a habeas corpus action. The Court also grants nunc pro tunc Respondents’ motions for extensions of time and allows 45 days after entry of the order to respond to the petition.

Holdings

1. Respondents did not demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the entire case, the entire state-court record, or all current and future filings. The motion to seal was therefore granted in part and denied in part.
2. Documents filed under seal in state court must be filed under seal in this case; documents filed unsealed in state court must be filed unsealed and with the same redaction status as in state court; documents not filed in state court must comply with the District of Nevada's local sealing and redaction rules.
3. Respondents' motions for extensions of time were granted nunc pro tunc, and Respondents were given 45 days after entry of the order to file an answer or other response to the petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Respondents demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the entire habeas case and all documents filed in it.
2. What filing and redaction procedures should govern state-court records and other documents containing information concerning minors.
3. Whether Respondents established good cause for additional extensions of time to answer or otherwise respond to the habeas petition.

Disposition

other