Alvarez v. Tracey

Filing 72

ORDER denying 70 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/15/10.(MAP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fortino Alvarez,

) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Randy Tracey, Acting Chief Administrator for the Gila River Indian ) ) Community Department of ) Rehabilitation and Supervision, ) ) Respondent. )

No. CV-08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD) ORDER

Petitioner Fortino Alvarez has filed a motion to seal his response to Respondent Randy Tracey's objections to Magistrate Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation. Generally, in order for a judicial record to be sealed, the party seeking to seal the record must show that `compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.'" Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)) (alteration and internal citations omitted). In this case, Alvarez has requested that his response be filed under seal because "it relates to a motion containing confidential information." Dkt. #70. The sealed motion at issue in this order is Alvarez's motion for leave to conduct discovery (Dkt. #17), which was sealed because it contained: "(1) social security numbers; (2) names of minor children; and (3) dates of birth." Dkt. #15 at 1. Alvarez's response, however, contains no confidential information of this nature. As a result, the Court finds no "compelling reasons" to seal the record, and the motion to seal will be denied. Dkt. #70.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that Alvarez's motion to seal (Dkt. #70) is denied. DATED this 15th day of March, 2010.

-2-