Smith v. Barrow Neurological Institute et al
Filing
125
ORDER DENYING defendants' motion to require plaintiff to post bond (doc. 108 ). IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motions to file exhibits under seal (docs. 114 and 119 ). This case was reassigned to the undersigned on March 16, 2012. I t is already 18 months old. Judge Campbell's case management order is more than adequate to bring this case to a conclusion. (Doc. 104). There will be no extensions granted to the deadlines in the order. We invite early dispositive motions. All records of the juvenile proceeding shall be shared no later than March 31, 2012. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than April 20, 2012. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/21/2012.(KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Barrow Neurological Institute of St.)
Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, et)
)
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Leanna Smith,
No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM
ORDER
16
17
The court has before it defendants Banner Health System and Scott Elton, M.D.'s
18
("Banner defendants") motion to require plaintiff to post bond (doc. 108), joinder on behalf
19
of Dignity Health defendants (doc. 112), plaintiff's response (doc. 113), plaintiff's response
20
to joinder (doc. 117), plaintiff's amended response to joinder (doc. 118), and Banner
21
defendants' reply (doc. 116). Defendants contend that plaintiff should be required to post a
22
$100,000 bond to cover attorneys' fees if defendants prevail in this action.
23
There is no rule or statute specifically governing the posting of a security bond for
24
attorneys' fees. LRCiv 54.1(c) permits us to order plaintiff to give security for the costs of
25
the action, but this applies only if the plaintiff is not an Arizona resident. No such showing
26
has been made here.
27
We also have before us plaintiff's motion to file exhibits to response to motion for
28
bond under seal (doc. 114) and plaintiff's motion to file exhibits to the response to the joinder
1
in motion for bond under seal (doc. 119). Plaintiff filed the exhibits as lodged proposed
2
documents. In the protective order issued June 28, 2011, Judge Campbell ordered the parties,
3
when attaching confidential information as exhibits, to "seek an order from the Court sealing
4
the records, setting forth reasons supported by specific factual findings for why such
5
pleadings, motions, or exhibits shall be sealed" pursuant to LRCiv 5.6 and Pintos v. Pacific
6
Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2007). (Doc. 69 ΒΆ 3). Plaintiff fails to support her
7
request with specific factual findings. She fails to comply with the protective order, LRCiv
8
5.6(b), and Pintos.
9
10
11
12
IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to require plaintiff to post bond
(doc. 108).
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motions to file exhibits under seal (docs.
114 and 119).
13
This case was reassigned to the undersigned on March 16, 2012. It is already 18
14
months old. Judge Campbell's case management order is more than adequate to bring this
15
case to a conclusion. (Doc. 104). There will be no extensions granted to the deadlines in the
16
order. We invite early dispositive motions. All records of the juvenile proceeding shall be
17
shared no later than March 31, 2012. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than
18
April 20, 2012.
19
DATED this 21st day of March, 2012.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?