FERREIRA v. ARPAIO, CV-15-01845-PHX-JAT. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20160808689
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' May 19, 2016, Motion for Court Order to Release Controlled Records. (Doc. 61). Defendants seek the release of certain "controlled" records that were initially delivered with redactions pursuant to Utah Code 63G-2-304, 63G-2-202(7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, but does "request that the Court order that Defendants maintain the confidentiality of any records that the parties receive from suc
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' May 19, 2016, Motion for Court Order to Release Controlled Records. (Doc. 61). Defendants seek the release of certain "controlled" records that were initially delivered with redactions pursuant to Utah Code 63G-2-304, 63G-2-202(7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, but does "request that the Court order that Defendants maintain the confidentiality of any records that the parties receive from such..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' May 19, 2016, Motion for Court Order to Release Controlled Records. (Doc. 61). Defendants seek the release of certain "controlled" records that were initially delivered with redactions pursuant to Utah Code §§ 63G-2-304, 63G-2-202(7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, but does "request that the Court order that Defendants maintain the confidentiality of any records that the parties receive from such Court order."1 (Doc. 66 at 1).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion, (Doc. 61), is hereby GRANTED, to the limited extent that the Utah Department of Human Services/Farmington Bay Youth Center shall produce to Defense Counsel unredacted copies of the previously produced records, including information previously withheld as being "controlled."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to have the Court ensure the "confidentiality" of the records affected by this Order, Plaintiff has through the end of Friday, August 12, 2016 to file the appropriate motion.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff, however, does not proffer any mechanism for the Court to rely on to ensure that the released records remain "confidential." For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits the Court to issue protective orders "for good cause" to "protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" during the discovery process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The burden is on the party seeking such an order to make "for each particular document it seeks to protect" a "showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).
Source: Leagle
