Frodsham v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 8 Trever Frodsham, by and through No. CV-22-01074-PHX-GMS 9 conservator, Fleming and Curti, PLC, ORDER 10 Plaintiff,

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14

15 16 Notices of Settlement have been field as to all remaining parties in this case. As 17 such, the pending motions at Doc. 59, Doc. 70, and Doc. 123 are denied as moot. 18 As for the motion to seal at Doc. 106, a party seeking to seal “motions for summary 19 judgment and related attachments” must overcome a “strong presumption of access to 20 judicial records,” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 21 2006), by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Foltz 22 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff meets the 23 compelling reasons standard because the documents at issue contain highly sensitive 24 information related to juvenile health records, juvenile court records, and highly sensitive 25 personal information. Additionally, no party opposes the motion to seal. As such, the 26 motion is granted. 27 28 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is DENIED as moot, Defendant Catholic Community Services’ Cross Motion for 5 || Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) is DENIED as moot, and Defendant Catholic Community || Services’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 123) is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits (Doc. 106) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal all 10 || items lodged at Doc. 107. 11 Dated this 16th day of August, 2023. Wars ) B A Whacrsay Fotos 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-