Baldwin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
This text of Baldwin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Baldwin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Gerald E Baldwin, No. CV-23-02327-PHX-JAT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Costco Wholesale Corporation,
13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) 16 motion for leave to file exhibits under seal. (Doc. 33). Specifically, Costco seeks to file the 17 following three exhibits under seal: Exhibit 3 (surveillance footage of the slip and fall at 18 issue in this case), Exhibit 4 (“a portion of Costco’s internal Loss Prevention Manual”), 19 and Exhibit 5 (“documentation relating to the . . . safety inspections performed on the date 20 of the subject incident”).1 (Doc. 33 at 2). For the following reasons, the Court will deny 21 this motion. 22 This is defense counsel’s third attempt in this district to file these types of exhibits 23 under seal. (See CV-22-947-PHX-DLR, Doc. 48; CV-24-271-PHX-KML, Doc. 37). Judge 24 Rayes denied a nearly identical motion. Sheikh v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. CV-22- 25 00947-PHX-DLR, 2024 WL 455243, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 6, 2024). Judge Lanham recently 26 did the same, noting that because Judge Rayes had denied the previous request, Costco had
27 1 The Court notes that Costco’s description of the exhibits does not match what it actually filed. Exhibit 4 (Doc. 34) is the safety inspection documentation and Exhibit 5 (Doc. 35) 28 is the portion of Costco’s Loss Prevention Manual. The Court will refer to the exhibits as described in Costco’s motion, not as actually filed. || already filed the documents? on the public docket. Bowen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2|| CV-24-00271-PHX-KML, 2025 WL 786517, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2025). The Court is || unclear why Costco again seeks to seal documents that are already in the public record. 4|| (CV-22-947-PHX-DLR, Docs. 59, 60). The Court reiterates Judge Lanham’s analysis: 5 Costco’s motion in this case does not explain why it would appropriate to seal a document that is already in the public record. Nor does the motion explain how 6 Costco would be harmed by the disclosure of the documents. Costco has not established there are “compelling reasons” Supporting the sealing of these 7 documents. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). 8 9|| Bowen, 2025 WL 786517, at *1. 10 Similarly, Costco has already filed video surveillance footage in the public record. (CV-22-947-PHX-DLR (USB Drive received by the Clerk’s office on February 13, 2024)). 12 || The same analysis from that case applies here: 13 Costco argues that the surveillance footage “is deserving of protection from use or publication outside the scope of this lawsuit” because “Costco’s primary use for its 14 surveillance system is asset protection and theft deterrence[.]” But it is common Knowledge that commercial retail businesses routinely use surveillance cameras to 15 protect their wares and deter theft. The unremarkable fact that Costco stores use 16 surveillance cameras is not a compelling reason to seal the footage. || Sheikh, 2024 WL 455243, at *1 (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED the motion to seal (Doc. 33) is DENIED. If Costco wants the court to consider these exhibits, it must file them on the public docket within five (5) days 20} of this order in accordance with LRCiv 5.6(e). This order shall not be sealed. 21 Dated this 31st day of March, 2025. 22 23 24 James A. Teilborg 25 Senior United States District Judge 26 — * In Judge Rayes’ case, Costco filed the same excerpt of its Loss Prevention Manual that it 27|| seeks to file under seal here as Exhibit 4. (CV-22-947-PHX-DLR, Doc. 59). Costco also filed its “Daily Floor Walk / Safety Inspection” form that was relevant in that case. (CV- | 22-947-PHX-DLR, Doc. 60). Although the inspection form here is for a different date and location, it is the same general form and same general information.
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Baldwin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-azd-2025.