Doe DH v. Scottsdale Inns LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00759
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Jane Doe DH, No. CV-23-00759-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Scottsdale Inns LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is the parties’ Stipulation to File the Parties’ Dispositive, Daubert, and Rule 16 37(C)(1) Sanctions Motion Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 119, Stip.). The parties request 17 permission to file under seal certain documents used to support their respective dispositive, 18 Daubert, and Rule 37 sanction motions. The Court will grant the Stipulation but will require 19 Defendants to refile their respective dispositive, Daubert, and sanctions motions on the 20 docket as set forth below. 21 In the Ninth Circuit, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to 22 court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 23 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 24 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial 25 record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access 26 and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 27 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a document is “more than tangentially related 28 to the merits” of a case, the party seeking to seal the document must demonstrate 1 “compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 2 1103. 3 Undoubtedly, the parties’ dispositive motions—which currently include Defendant 4 Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 120, 122) and 5 Defendants Scottsdale Inn, LLC, PRC Investment LLC, and Parimal Parmar’s Motion for 6 Summary Judgment (Docs. 124, 125)—and exhibits are more than tangentially related to 7 the merits of this matter. 8 Therefore, the parties must thus demonstrate compelling reasons to justify keeping 9 the documents under seal. The documents at issue include transcript excerpts from the 10 depositions of Plaintiff, Kristy Lewis, Marc Merriweather, and Defendant Parimal Parmar, 11 the Howard Johnson International, Inc. Standard of Operation and Design Manual, 2013 12 Howard Johnson hotel reservations and a guest folio from February 14, 2013, a July 2013 13 police report, and Plaintiff’s responses to various discovery requests (collectively, the 14 “Designated Documents”). (Stip. at 2.) The parties argue that there are compelling reasons 15 to seal the Designated Documents because they either contain Plaintiff’s personally 16 identifiable information that could reveal her now-hidden identity, and Defendants’ 17 confidential and proprietary business information. 18 Upon review of the Designated Documents currently lodged under seal at docket 19 entries 123, 128, 129, 130, and 131, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the original 20 versions. However, this does not relieve the parties from filing redacted versions of those 21 documents on the docket for the benefit of the public. A review of the Designated 22 Documents indicates that much of the information contained therein does not implicate 23 Plaintiff’s identity or Defendants’ business information. Defendants, therefore, must refile 24 their respective filings currently located at docket entries 121, 122, 125, 126, and 127 25 attaching redacted versions of the Designated Documents. Defendants should take great 26 care in redacting only the information that relates to the Plaintiff’s identity and Defendants’ 27 confidential and proprietary business information. 28 . . . 1 Accordingly, the Court will grant the Stipulation and direct the Clerk of Court to 2|| seal documents lodged at docket entries 123 and 128, 129, 130, and 131. The Court will || also strike Defendants’ various filings located at docket entries 121, 122, 125, 126 and 127 4|| for failing to attach redacted versions of the sealed documents for the public’s benefit. 5 || Defendants must refile their respective filings that are stricken by this Order with redacted 6|| versions of the sealed documents attached no later than October 7, 2025. This Order does || not toll Plaintiff's time to respond to Defendants’ various filings. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation to File the 9|| Parties’ Dispositive, Daubert, and Rule 37(C)(1) Sanctions Motion Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 119). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the 12 || documents currently lodged under seal at docket entries 123, 128, 129, 130, and 131. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Defendants’ filings located at docket entries 121, 122, 125, 126 and 127. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than October 7, 2025, Defendants shall refile their respective filings currently located at docket entries 121, 122, 125, 126 and 127 with redacted versions of the sealed documents attached thereto. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order does not toll Plaintiffs time to || respond to Defendants’ filings currently located at docket entries 121, 122, 125, 126 and 127. 21 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2025. CN 22 “wok: 73 wefflee— Unifgd State#District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-3-