Papdakos, David The Estate of et al v. Norton et al
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion to File Video Recordings Under Seal. Additionally, in Plaintiffs memorandum in opposition, B.P.s full date of birth is included, contrary to Rule 5.2(a)(2) and DUCivR 5.2-1, which r equire that pleadings be redacted such that only the year of an individuals birth be included. Thus, the court further orders Plaintiffs to correct their filing so that only the year of B.P.s birth is included.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 8/17/2015. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF DAVID PAPADAKOS,
deceased; and the heirs of David
Papadakos, MICHAEL and CATHERINE
PAPADAKOS,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:14cv774
Plaintiffs,
v.
L. VANCE NORTON, in his official and
individual capacities; LISA JORGENSEN,
in her official and individual capacities;
Defendants.
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is L. Vance Norton’s (“Defendant”)
motion to file video recordings under seal.2 The court has carefully reviewed memoranda
submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not
necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 71(f).
1
See docket no. 26.
2
See docket no. 15.
This action arises from the criminal prosecution of David Papadakos. David was charged
with two counts of sexual abuse of a child and nine counts of forcible sexual abuse based on
allegations made by his adopted son B.P. The allegations of abuse are documented in video
recordings of three interviews conducted in part by Defendant. The videos depict statements
made by B.P. while he was a minor being interviewed at the Children’s Justice Center. The
videos contain discussion of highly personal information about B.P. beyond the allegations of
abuse that are the subject of this case.
Defendant requests that the court order that any copy of the video recordings of the
interviews with B.P. be filed under seal in order to protect the privacy of B.P. Defendant
contends that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for counsel to redact the video recordings to
omit B.P.’s name and the name of other minors referenced in the recordings as required by Rule
5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and DUCivR 5.2-1(a). Defendant asserts that
sealing the video recordings would not prevent the parties from filing and quoting transcripts of
the interviews, with the appropriate redactions, without seal.
In opposition, the Estate of David Papadakos, Michael Papadakos, and Catherine
Papadakos (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) assert that sealing the interviews with B.P. is unwarranted
in this case. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that B.P. is no longer a minor; the transcripts of the
interviews Defendant has presented are incomplete and have omissions; the transcripts do not
add vital context, including body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice; and it would be
burdensome on Plaintiffs to comply with sealing rules. Plaintiffs further argue that granting
Defendant’s motion would unnecessarily restrict evidence that should be made available to the
public. The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments.
2
Defendant is not asking the court or an eventual jury to rely on the transcripts rather than
the videos. As noted by Defendant, if the case ultimately goes to trial, it will be critical for the
jury to watch the videos and an order requiring the videos be filed under seal would not prevent
the jury from doing so. Requiring the videos to be filed under seal strikes an appropriate balance
between respecting and protecting B.P.’s privacy, while also respecting the policy that court
documents be made available to the public. Furthermore, this court orders the videos to be
sealed only until the pretrial conference at which time the matter may be revisited by Judge
Shelby to determine whether it is proper to seal the portions of the trial during which the videos
are played or to unseal the videos before trial. The court concludes that Defendant’s request is
narrowly tailored to protect and respect the privacy of B.P. while respecting the presumption that
records of the court are open to the public set forth in DUCiv 5-2(a). Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion is GRANTED.
Additionally, in Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition, B.P.’s full date of birth is
included, contrary to Rule 5.2(a)(2) and DUCivR 5.2-1, which require that pleadings be redacted
such that only the year of an individual’s birth be included. Thus, the court further orders
Plaintiffs to correct their filing so that only the year of B.P.’s birth is included.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?