the special protection of minors and their privacy where sensitive and possibly stigmatizing matters are concerned.” Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1375 (8th Cir.1990). Although these statutes do not govern this civil rights action in federal court, they do reflect a legislative judgment that the state has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of court proceedings involving children. See M.P. v. Schwartz, 853 F.Supp. 164, 169 (D.Md.1994) (recognizing that section 1983 action was “inextricably bound up with allegations of child abuse” and that disclosing child’s name in that action would contravene state statutes mandating confidentiality of court records pertaining to a child); cf. Tower v. Leslie-Brown, 167 F.Supp.2d 399, 405 (D.Me.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys.
holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential holding that access to confidential information didnt transform janitorial staff into confidential employees under branti holding that the defendants statement was involuntary because it was made during a court ordered mental examination and a state statute provided that such statements would remain confidential holding that when underlying child protective proceedings relating to plaintiffs section 1983 civil rights complaint were kept confidential by state statute allowing parties to import confidential documents into federal court and thereby make them public would undermine the states policy holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information