Opinion
2:23-cr-0125 KJM
08-30-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Plaintiff, v. SHASTA LEA SCHNITTKER, Defendant.
HEATHER WILLIAMS #122664 FEDERAL DEFENDER RACHELLE BARBOUR #185395 ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-MOVANT SHASTA LEA SCHNITTKER
HEATHER WILLIAMS #122664 FEDERAL DEFENDER RACHELLE BARBOUR #185395 ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-MOVANT SHASTA LEA SCHNITTKER
[PROPOSED! ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS
HON. KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
For the reasons set forth in the unopposed Defense Request to Seal, the Court hereby orders Exhibits A and D (both psychological reports) and Exhibit F (a social history report) SEALED until further order of the Court. Local Rule 460; Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co. (HEMIC), 760 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1013 (D. Haw. 2010) (“The need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason' that overcomes the presumption of public access to judicial records.”); United States v. Curran, 2006 WL 1159855 at *5 (D. Ariz. 2006)(concluding that “Defendant's right to privacy, which includes his right to avoid the disclosure of his personal, psychiatric information, constitutes a ‘higher value'” that outweighs the public's right to access court proceedings); Doe by and through Tanis v. County of San Diego, 5766 F.Supp.3d 721, 733 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (“[A] rape victim has a fundamental right of privacy in preventing government officials from gratuitously and unnecessarily releasing the intimate details of the rape where no penological purpose is being served.”) (quoting Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 at 6875-86).