Smith v. Barrow Neurological Institute et al

Filing 291

ORDER granting 285 Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/30/12. (MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Leanna Smith,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Barrow Neurological Institute, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM
ORDER

14
15

We have before us plaintiff's motion to file under seal her response to defendants'

16

motion for sanctions (doc. 285). A party seeking to seal records must provide compelling

17

reasons which outweigh the general history of access and public policies favoring disclosure.

18

Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010).

19

Plaintiff requests the sealing of her response because the exhibits consist of juvenile

20

court records, police reports, and deposition transcripts of Child Protective Services workers.

21

Public policy favors the protection of minors' privacy. Indeed, juvenile court records and

22

proceedings are generally confidential. See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 8-208(F) ("Except as otherwise

23

provided by law, the records of an adoption, severance or dependency proceeding shall not

24

be open to public inspection."); 8-537(A) (excluding general public from termination

25

adjudication hearing). Records relating to investigations conducted by Child Protective

26

Services are confidential. A.R.S. § 41-1959(A). Therefore, compelling reasons exist for

27

sealing plaintiff's response.

28

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to file her response to defendants'
motion for sanctions under seal (doc. 285).
DATED this 30th day of October, 2012.

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
-2-