Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

{
\_. FILED LODGED -
RECEIVED ___COPV
Timothy Lee Ward, 148256
1 Arizona State Prison Complex- Florence
PO r Off` B 8400
2 FIEIQHCELC; .0x 85232_84OO QLERKUSDBTHICTCOURT
y _ * mmm ¤•sTnac1oa=Aa:z0NA
Plaintiff Pro—Per BY M DEPUTY
3
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
) Case No.: CIV—03—2159—PHX—ROS (JRI}
8 Timothy Lee Ward, )
. . F
9 Plsl¤tlff· ) Plaintiff's Response to Defendants
) Motion to File Under Seal Certain
40 V5- 1 Exhibits
‘ }
ll Sgt. Carr, et. al., )
J
12 t ‘ iDefendant ) -
13 Comes now, the Plaintiff, Timothy Lee Ward, pro-per, and hereby responds
14 to Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits. DefendantS'
15 motion should be denied because filing documents under seal is a request to
16 keep documents out of public access. As quoted by the Defendants in their
17 “Response to P1aintiff's Request for Leave to File Documents Under Seal to
18 the Court", (Docket 4 104} “The relevant standard for purposes of Rule 26(C)
19 is whether good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed
20 to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
21 Confidentiality.” (Quoting Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d 792,
22 801 (9m Cir 2007)]. In Defendants Response (Docket # 104] Defendants state
23 “However, documents that are filed under seal are still exchanged between the
24 parties". (See Docket #104, Page 3 lines l0—1l) Since the Defendants
25 previously avowed to this Court that documents under seal are still exchanged
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI D0cumen¥1143 Filed O4/23/2008 Page 1 of 2
—······--·—-----¤¤llIIIllI¤Ill||ll||||||||||||||||

. I
1
l between the parties, then the Defendants should follow that stance. The
2 Plaintiff asked this Court to order Defendants documents be filed under seal
3 and the Defendants strongly disagreed with this approach. If this Court
4 disagrees with Plaintiff, then Plaintiff requests the Court order the
5 Defendants to provide a complete synopsis of the Documents and a redacted
6 copy to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no idea what these documents
7 consist of, and therefore cannot defend against them on Summary Judgment.
8 Respectfully submitted this 3860 day of April, 2008
9
10 Timothy Lee Ward
Plaintiff Pro—Per
11
l2 - - - - ‘~° -
Copies of the Foregoing mailed this 33 day of April, 2008, to:
l3 office sr the Clerk
United States District Court
i ld 40l West Washington Street, SPC—l
\ Phoenix, Arizona 85003—QllG
15
Ms. Michele Forney, Attorney
16 Office of the Attorney General
1275 West Washington
U phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI D0cumem143 Filed O4/23/2008 Page2of2

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Document 143

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Document 143

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 2