L.P. v. Bella Mente Montessori Academy

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01166
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 L.P., a minor, by and through his guardian Case No.: 3:23-cv-01166-LL-AHG ad litem, Yamin B., 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 14 PARTE MOTION TO SEAL; and BELLA MENTE MONTESSORI 15 ACADEMY, (2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 16 Defendant. FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF 17 SEALED DOCUMENTS

18 [ECF No. 3] 19

20 21 22

23 24 25

26 27 28 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Under Seal: 2 (1) Plaintiff’s Application for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem; Memorandum of Points 3 and Authorities in Support; (2) Declaration of Yamin B. in Support of Plaintiff’s 4 Application for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem; (3) Declaration of Gabriela Torres in 5 Support of Plaintiff’s Application for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem (“Motion to 6 Seal”). ECF No. 3. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 7 However, Plaintiff will be ordered to file redacted versions of the filings for the public 8 docket. 9 I. BACKGROUND 10 On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff L.P., by and through his mother and legal guardian 11 Yamin B., initiated this action by filing a Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise in 12 this Court. ECF No. 1. Although there is currently no pending lawsuit between the parties 13 in this Court, as noted by Plaintiff in the initial filing, courts may construe a joint filing 14 seeking approval of a minor’s compromise of claims that otherwise arise under federal law 15 as both a complaint invoking the jurisdiction of the Court and a petition for approval of 16 minor’s compromise. See id. at n.1; P.R. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 2019 U.S. Dist. 17 LEXIS 46346, *2 (“[T]he parties have not presented any authority indicating that this court 18 has jurisdiction to approve a settlement of a minor’s claim when that claim and dispute is 19 not actually pending before the court. That said, the parties’ assertion that subject matter 20 jurisdiction would exist is accurate. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims 21 that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. . . . In light of the foregoing, the court will 22 construe the parties’ joint filing as both a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 23 29 U.S.C. § 7941 and a petition for approval of minor’s compromise.”). 24 Generally speaking, the Court has a special duty to safeguard the interests of minors 25 participating in litigation before it. Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th 26 Cir. 1983); Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 17(c) (district courts “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another 28 appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an 1 action.”); CivLR 17.1(a) (requiring that “[a]ll settlements and compromises” of an action 2 by or on behalf of a minor “be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval 3 [of the settlement] will issue.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has filed this action to seek Court 4 approval of the settlement of his claims against Defendant arising under the Individuals 5 with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the 6 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 7 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101. ECF No. 1 at 2. 8 The instant Motion to Seal concerns Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 9 Appointment of Guardian ad Litem and related attachments (“Motion to Appoint GAL”). 10 ECF No. 4. Plaintiff requests that the Court maintain the Motion to Appoint GAL under 11 seal in order to protect the identity of L.P., a minor, from public disclosure. ECF No. 3. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 14 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 15 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 16 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Other than grand jury transcripts and warrant 17 materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation, which are documents that have 18 been “traditionally kept secret,” there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to all 19 other court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 20 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a court record bears 21 the burden of overcoming the “strong presumption in favor of access” by articulating 22 “compelling reasons for doing so.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Here, Plaintiff argues there is good cause to allow the filing of the Motion to Appoint 25 GAL and all related attachments under seal because, if they are not placed under seal, they 26 will publicly identify L.P., a minor, in contravention of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). 27 Rule 5.2(a)(3) requires any party filing a document with the Court containing the 28 name of an individual known to be a minor to “include only [] the minor’s initials” in the 1 || filing. Rule 5.2(d) further provides that the Court may order that a filing be made under 2 ||seal without redaction. Therefore, the Court agrees there are compelling reasons to 3 ||GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to maintain the documents related to the Motion to Appoint 4 || GAL lodged at ECF No. 4 under seal. The Clerk’s Office is directed to keep all documents 5 || contained in the entry at ECF No. 4 UNDER SEAL. 6 However, Rule 5.2(d) further provides that the Court may order the person who made 7 || the filing that is kept under seal to file a redacted version for the public record. Fed. R. Civ. 8 ||P. 5.2(d). Upon due consideration, the Court finds that such an order is appropriate in this 9 ||case to ensure that Plaintiff's identity is kept confidential while still honoring the strong 10 || presumption in favor of public access to court records. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Seal (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office 13 |/is instructed to maintain all documents lodged at ECF No. 4 UNDER SEAL indefinitely. 14 Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's counsel 15 |}is ORDERED to file redacted versions of those sealed documents currently maintained at 16 || ECF No. 4 on the public docket no later than July 3, 2023. In the redacted filings, counsel 17 || must redact all references to: (1) L.P.’s full name, (2) L.P’s mother Yamin B.’s full name, 18 (3) L.P.’s father’s full name. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 28, 2023 21 22 Mie 4. 4 slolaruk 23 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28