Frodsham v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

WO Trever Frodsham, by and through No. CV-22-01074-PHX-GMS conservator, Fleming and Curti, PLC, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

Notices of Settlement have been field as to all remaining parties in this case. As such, the pending motions at Doc. 59, Doc. 70, and Doc. 123 are denied as moot. As for the motion to seal at Doc. 106, a party seeking to seal “motions for summary judgment and related attachments” must overcome a “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff meets the compelling reasons standard because the documents at issue contain highly sensitive information related to juvenile health records, juvenile court records, and highly sensitive personal information. Additionally, no party opposes the motion to seal. As such, the motion is granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is DENIED as moot, Defendant Catholic Community Services’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) is DENIED as moot, and Defendant Catholic Community Services’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 123) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits (Doc. 106) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal all items lodged at Doc. 107. Dated this 16th day of August, 2023. Wars ) B A Whacrsay Fotos Chief United States District Judge

_2-