Miroth v. County of Trinity ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Patricia Miroth, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00460-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. County of Trinity, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on the request of defendants County of Trinity and five 18 | social workers employed by the county to seal the juvenile records and transcripts of juvenile 19 | court proceedings of two minors, which defendants submit to support their motion to dismiss. 20 | See Defs.’ Req. Seal, ECF No. 33. For the reasons below, the court grants the request. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 “(T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 23 | and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 USS. 24 | 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Although that right is not absolute, “ ‘a strong presumption 25 | in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 26 | 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 27 | (9th Cir. 2003)). This presumption “is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 28 | independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 1 | accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for 2 | Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. 3 | Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 4 Access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect against 5 | “gratif[ication of] private spite or promotion of] public scandal” or to preclude court dockets 6 | from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements . . ..” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (citations 7 | omitted). “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive 8 | motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” 9 | Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 10 Here, defendants request to seal the juvenile records of two minors and the transcripts of 11 | juvenile court proceedings involving those two minors. Courts have found that juvenile court 12 | records contain sensitive information that outweighs the presumption of public access and may be 13 | filed under seal. See A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13- 03276, 2015 WL 4076364, at *2 (N.D. 14 | Cal. July 2, 2015) (citing cases). Accordingly, the court finds the defendants have met the 15 | “compelling reasons” standard. 16 II. CONCLUSION 17 For the above reasons, defendants’ request is granted and exhibits A through P in support 18 | of the declaration of William J. Bittner in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss shall remain 19 | sealed unless otherwise ordered. 20 If any party or other interested person wishes to have the documents or any portion of the 21 | documents unsealed, that party or other person shall file an application with the Court and serve 22 | all other parties to this action with a copy of such application. 23 The documents provided to the court by defendants and designated in defendants’ Notice 24 | and Request to Seal the Documents are hereby ordered to be filed under seal by the Clerk of the 25 | Court. 26 This order resolves ECF No. 33 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 | DATED: August 30, 2022. CHIEF STATES DISTRICT JUDGE