Doan v. Phoenix, City of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01995
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Danny Chu Doan, No. CV-25-01995-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Phoenix, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Plaintiff Danny Chu Doan’s Motion to Seal or Redact Defendant 16 Bolin’s Exhibit Doc. 106-1 (Doc. 107, Mot.). Plaintiff separately filed his Notice of 17 Imminent Safety Risk Created by Defendants’ Public Filing of Sensitive Custody 18 Information (Doc. 108, Pl. Not.) in support of his Motion. According to Plaintiff, the 19 offending exhibit was attached to Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss 20 and reflects Plaintiff’s public inmate record (the “Exhibit”). (Doc 106, MTD Reply; Doc. 21 106-1, Original Ex.) Later, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to 22 Seal or Redact Defendant Bolin’s Exhibit (Doc. 112) and lodged a proposed redacted 23 version of the Exhibit (Doc. 113). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in 24 part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 In the Ninth Circuit, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to 26 court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 27 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 28 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial 1 record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access 2 and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 3 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a document is “more than tangentially related 4 to the merits” of a case, the party seeking to seal the document must demonstrate 5 “compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 6 1103. 7 The Exhibit is “more than tangentially related to the merits” of this matter. 8 Defendants rely upon the Exhibit to show that Plaintiff had access to legal material and 9 resources during his time in custody, thereby not tolling his claims. (MTD Reply at 3–4.) 10 Defendants’ argument relies upon the classification of Plaintiff’s custody being “close,” 11 not “maximum,” custody. (Id.) If Defendants are successful, Plaintiff’s claims would be 12 dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations. (Id. at 2–6.) 13 Because the Exhibit is “more than tangentially related to the merits” of this matter, 14 Plaintiff must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to justify keeping the documents under 15 seal. Plaintiff argues that such reasons exist because the information related to “Plaintiff’s 16 restricted custody placement and other internal housing records . . . creates a serious 17 safety risk to Plaintiff.” (Mot. at 1.) According to Plaintiff, the Exhibit reveals “prior 18 protective custody designations, housing placements, and internal classification codes,” 19 which put Plaintiff in danger because such data “exposes an individual as vulnerable or as 20 an alleged informant.” (Pl. Not. at 1–2.) Upon review of the Exhibit, there appear to be 21 no so-called protective custody designations mentioned. (See generally Original Ex.) And 22 while the Exhibit does reflect housing placements and classification codes, Plaintiff does 23 not explain why that data “exposes” him as “vulnerable” or an “informant.” Plaintiff fails 24 to grapple with the fact that the Exhibit is a public record, meaning anyone at any time 25 can receive the same information from the Arizona Department of Corrections that was 26 contained in the Exhibit. Plaintiff presents no compelling reason to justify sealing the 27 entire Exhibit. 28 1 Plaintiff alternatively requested that Defendants file a redacted version of the 2|| Exhibit to omit references “to protective custody status, housing transfers, and other || sensitive inmate records.” (Mot. at 2.) Defendants’ proposed redacted exhibit appears to 4|| redact the requisite information to appease Plaintiff while not obstructing the information 5 || referenced in Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, this Court 6|| will grant Plaintiff's request to redact the information he deems to be sensitive and will 7\| direct the Clerk of Court to file Defendant’s proposed exhibit containing those redactions. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part □□□□□□□□□□□ Motion to Seal or Redact Defendant Bolin’s Exhibit Doc. 106-1 (Doc. 107). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Reply in Support || of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 106-1). 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file the document 13 || currently lodged under seal at Doc. 113. 14 Dated this 24th day of September, 2025. CN

16 wef holee— United StatesDistrict Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-