Order — United States v. Chapon (Dkt. 88, D. Nev.)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Karen Chapon, Case No. 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, dated October 6, 2022 and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe. The order addresses a sealed stipulation for protective order and a motion to seal (Docket Nos. 86, 87). Citing the strong presumption of public access in Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, it finds that the motion offers no meaningful argument to overcome that presumption. It notes that the stipulation appears to have been sealed only because it names an entity, which could be redacted or referred to generally. The court strikes the stipulation and denies the motion to seal without prejudice.

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-00286-JCM-NJK Document 88 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 2




 1
                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 2                                        DISTRICT OF NEVADA

 3
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                              Case No. 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK
 4
                             Plaintiff,                                    Order
 5
     v.                                                             [Docket Nos. 86, 87]
 6
     KAREN CHAPON,
 7
                            Defendant.
 8

 9         Pending before the Court is a sealed stipulation for protective order and a motion to seal.

10 Docket Nos. 86, 87.

11         There is a strong presumption in favor of the public’s access to judicial filings. See, e.g.,

12 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion to seal

13 in this case includes no points and authorities or meaningful argument to overcome that

14 presumption. See Docket No. 87. Moreover, it appears the parties filed the stipulation for

15 protective order under seal because it identifies an entity by name, see Docket No. 87 at 2, which

16 begs the question as to why a more general reference cannot be used, cf. Docket No. 1 (complaint

17 referencing entities as “Bank 1” or the like), or why the parties are not seeking to merely redact

18 that name rather than seal the entire document, cf. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d

19 1033, 1040-41 (D. Nev. 2021) (“Any request to seal must also be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove

20 from the public sphere only material that warrants secrecy”).1

21

22         1
             The motion to seal also appears to rest on the “nature of the sensitive non-public
   materials” at issue. Docket No. 87 at 1. Those materials are not actually attached to the stipulation
23
   for protective order and are described in very general terms, so it is unclear how this reasoning
   would support sealing the stipulation for protective order itself.

          Case 2:20-cr-00286-JCM-NJK Document 88 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 2




 1        Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the stipulation for protective order (Docket No. 86) and

 2 DENIES without prejudice the motion to seal (Docket No. 87).

 3        IT IS SO ORDERED.

 4        DATED: October 6, 2022.

 5
                                              NANCY J. KOPPE
 6                                            UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



                                                 2

File and source

File

88.pdf

Size

111,879 bytes

SHA-256

a0dda0f246ef1e1f053292f3b7016bdda88747e6349f985a460fa83c2e39c07a

Our copy

88.pdf