Miroth v. County of Trinity

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Patricia Miroth, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00460-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv.

County of Trinity, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 This matter is before the court on the request of defendants County of Trinity and five | social workers employed by the county to seal the juvenile records and transcripts of juvenile | 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 | 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 | 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 | (9th Cir. 2003)). This presumption “is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although | independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of | accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for | Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. | Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

4 Access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect against | “gratif[ication of] private spite or promotion of] public scandal” or to preclude court dockets | from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements . . ..” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (citations | omitted). “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive | 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 | juvenile court proceedings involving those two minors. Courts have found that juvenile court | records contain sensitive information that outweighs the presumption of public access and may be | filed under seal. See A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13- 03276, 2015 WL 4076364, at *2 (N.D. | Cal. July 2, 2015) (citing cases). Accordingly, the court finds the defendants have met the | “compelling reasons” standard.

16 II. CONCLUSION 17 For the above reasons, defendants’ request is granted and exhibits A through P in support | of the declaration of William J. Bittner in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss shall remain | sealed unless otherwise ordered.

20 If any party or other interested person wishes to have the documents or any portion of the | documents unsealed, that party or other person shall file an application with the Court and serve | 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 | and Request to Seal the Documents are hereby ordered to be filed under seal by the Clerk of the | Court.

26 This order resolves ECF No. 33 27 IT IS SO ORDERED.

28 | DATED: August 30, 2022.

CHIEF STATES DISTRICT JUDGE