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 ¶ 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-