Order Denying (1) Government’s Motion to Accept Sale Price, (2) Government’s Second Motion to Seal, and (3) Defendant’s Motion to Stay — United States v. Casutt (Dkt. 263, D. Nev.)

Summary

An Order Denying (1) Government's Motion to Accept Sale Price, (2) Government's Second Motion to Seal, and (3) Defendant's Motion to Stay in United States of America v. Brandon Casutt, Case No. 2:20-cr-00231-APG-NJK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, dated December 6, 2024 and signed by Chief District Judge Andrew P. Gordon. The court finds that the renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 259) still does not give sufficient reasons under Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, but orders that the documents already under seal remain sealed. It denies without prejudice the government's motion for approval of the sale of the Henderson house (ECF No. 254) and denies Casutt's motion to stay (ECF No. 262) as moot.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00231-APG-NJK             Document 263        Filed 12/06/24      Page 1 of 3




 1                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 2                                      DISTRICT OF NEVADA

 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Case No.: 2:20-cr-00231-APG-NJK

 4          Plaintiff                                    Order Denying (1) Government’s Motion
                                                          to Accept Sale Price, (2) Government’s
 5 v.                                                   Second Motion to Seal, and (3) Defendant’s
                                                                      Motion to Stay
 6 BRANDON CASUTT,
                                                                  [ECF Nos. 254, 259, 262]
 7          Defendant

 8         The United States moves for my approval to sell the house located at 1924 Coralino

 9 Drive, Henderson, NV. ECF No. 254. In connection with that motion, the Government filed

10 under seal exhibits that purportedly support the proposed sale price. ECF Nos. 255, 260. I

11 previously denied without prejudice the Government’s motion to seal those exhibits and allowed

12 the Government to file a new motion to seal with better support. ECF No. 258. The Government

13 has filed a renewed motion to seal those exhibits. ECF No. 259. Brandon Casutt has filed a

14 motion to stay the Government’s proposed sale. ECF No. 262. For the reasons set forth below, I

15 deny all three motions.

16 Motion to Seal (ECF No. 259)

17         The Government’s renewed motion still does not provide sufficient reasons why its

18 exhibits should be sealed under Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th

19 Cir. 2006). The Kamakana court held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is needed to

20 support the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. Id. at 1178-79. “The mere fact

21 that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

22 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179

23 (citation omitted). The party seeking to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion must

        Case 2:20-cr-00231-APG-NJK             Document 263         Filed 12/06/24      Page 2 of 3




 1 present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring secrecy and show that these specific

 2 interests overcome the presumption of public access by outweighing the public’s interests in

 3 understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181. The Government has not offered compelling

 4 reasons to seal the evidence that supports the proposed sale price. I therefore deny the motion to

 5 seal.

 6          Because I am denying the motion to seal, the Government requests that I allow it “to

 7 withdraw, to strike, and to literally remove” from the record the motion to sell, both motions to

 8 seal, and all supporting exhibits “so they cannot be available to the public.” ECF No. 259 at 2.

 9 In order to preserve the record for any appeal, I will not strike or allow removal of the filed

10 documents. However, out of an abundance of caution, I will allow the documents that are

11 presently sealed to remain sealed. And I will not consider those documents in deciding the

12 Government’s motion to approve the sale.

13 Motion to Approve Sale (ECF No. 254)

14          Because I am not considering the exhibits submitted in support of the motion to approve

15 the sale, there is no factual basis for me to grant that motion. I therefore deny the motion without

16 prejudice to the Government’s ability to file a new motion seeking approval of the sale.

17 However, the Government must present a sufficient factual basis to support its proposed sale

18 price.

19 Motion to Stay Sale (ECF No. 262)

20          Because I am denying the Government’s motion to sell the property, Casutt’s motion to

21 stay that sale is moot, so I deny it. In addition, Casutt’s present motion offers no reason to stay

22 the sale other than he has a pending motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. At

23 this point, that is not a sufficient basis to stay the proposed sale. If Casutt seeks to block a future



                                                      2

        Case 2:20-cr-00231-APG-NJK            Document 263        Filed 12/06/24      Page 3 of 3




 1 motion to sell, he should file a timely opposition and offer facts and legal principles to support

 2 his request.

 3         I THEREFORE ORDER that the Government’s renewed motion to seal exhibits (ECF

 4 No. 259) is denied. However, I order that the documents currently filed under seal will

 5 remain sealed.

 6         I FURTHER ORDER that the Government’s motion for approval of the sale (ECF No.

 7 254) is denied without prejudice.

 8         I FURTHER ORDER that Casutt’s motion to stay the Government’s proposed sale (ECF

 9 No. 262) is denied as moot.

10         Dated: December 6, 2024.

11
                                                  ANDREW P. GORDON
12                                                CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



                                                     3

File and source

File

263.pdf

Size

142,817 bytes

SHA-256

cd5079db88d078a5c2116491cf9eeb724a6f454bd66c82a9218c73b14a6ac4b3

Our copy

263.pdf