access. See Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir.2002) (“When there is a compelling interest in secrecy, as in the case of ... the privacy of children, portions and in extreme cases the entirety of a trial record can be sealed ... The interest in secrecy is weighed against the competing interests case by case.”). Louisiana statutes similarly reflect a public policy favoring confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings involving children. LA. CH. CODE Arts. 407, 412. Juvenile courts in Louisiana have jurisdiction over proceedings involving children in need of care, including cases of child abuse, and records of those proceedings are also regarded as confidential. LA. CH. CODE Art. 307. “These measures all reflect a strong public policy fa 855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Courts have also recognized, however, that
holding that in reviewing the petition the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the longstanding public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies holding that when state law prohibited discovery of records of a medical review committee the district court should have determined whether the records came within the statutes coverage and if so whether the right of access nevertheless outweighed the public policy expressed by state law holding that ajlthough the decision we review is that of declining to unseal the records the issue is whether the records should have been sealed in the first place and the one who seeks to overcome the expectation of access bears the burden of establishing the requisite important state interest holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law