Smith v. Barrow Neurological Institute et al

Filing 293

ORDER granting 287 Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/31/12. (MAP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Leanna Smith, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 Barrow Neurological Institute, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM ORDER 14 We have before us plaintiff's motion to file under seal her response to defendants' 15 motion for summary judgment (doc. 287). A party seeking to seal records must provide 16 compelling reasons which outweigh the general history of access and public policies favoring 17 disclosure. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010). 18 Plaintiff requests that her response be filed under seal because the exhibits consist of 19 juvenile court records, a police report involving allegations defendants made to Child 20 Protective Services ("CPS"), and deposition transcripts of CPS workers. 21 favors the protection of minors' privacy. Indeed, juvenile court records and proceedings are 22 generally confidential. See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 8-208(F), 8-537(A). Records relating to 23 investigations conducted by Child Protective Services are confidential. A.R.S. § 41-1959(A). 24 Therefore, compelling reasons exist for sealing plaintiff's response. 25 26 27 28 Public policy IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to file her response to defendants' motion for summary judgment under seal (doc. 287). DATED this 31st day of October, 2012.

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?