Stanfield v. State of Montana

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 11/13/2013. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
KERRY CORNELIUS STANFIELD,

Cause No. CV 12-45-BU-DLC-CSO

Petitioner,
vs.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART LEAVE TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

MARTIN FRINK; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
Respondents.

Petitioner Stanfield moves to file two exhibits under seal. The exhibits
consist of mental health assessments performed upon Stanfield’s arrival at
Montana State Prison.
Although Stanfield’s motion is unopposed, he does not attempt to carry his
burden of showing a compelling reason for sealing the exhibits. See Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). Stanfield
is a petitioner in a civil proceeding who has put his mental state at issue. He has
submitted the exhibits in response to an Order to Show Cause. If he does not
succeed in showing cause, his petition may be dismissed. Consequently, the
appropriate standard for sealing the exhibits is the “compelling reason” standard.
Id.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(2), however, remote public access to a

1

document may be prohibited where there is “good cause.” The exhibits are of a
sensitive and personal nature, similar to exhibits typically filed in connection with
social security or immigration cases. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c). There is good
cause to limit electronic access to the exhibits to the parties and to persons who are
at the courthouse.
Because the exhibits will not be sealed from all public access, Stanfield may
choose to file another version of the exhibits redacting information that is not
pertinent to his mental state. If he does so, the electronic record available to public
access at the courthouse will be limited to the redacted version of the exhibits.
Based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
ORDER
1. Petitioner Stanfield’s motion (ECF 29) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court shall limit electronic access to Exhibits 501
and 502 (ECF 30 ) to the parties and to persons at the courthouse.
2. Stanfield may file a redacted version of the exhibits within three (3)
working days of the date of this Order. If he does so, the version available to
public view at the courthouse will be the redacted version.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
2