Fidler v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00300
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Jessica Fidler, No. CV-22-00300-PHX-ROS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This Order resolves a motion to stay, a motion to seal, and a motion for extension 16 of time. 17 I. Motion to Stay 18 Plaintiff Jessica Fidler, on behalf of Plaintiff E.F., seeks “to stay these proceedings 19 for 90 days to allow Plaintiff E.F. to serve an amended [notice of claim] on” various state 20 defendants. (Doc. 126 at 2). If granted a stay, E.F. plans to serve an amended notice of 21 claim, allow the response time to run, and if no settlement is reached, amend his complaint 22 in this case to include various state-law claims. According to E.F., if a stay is not granted, 23 he will have to withdraw from the present suit, complete the notice of claim process, and 24 then re-file his “state and federal claims in a separate federal court action.” (Doc. 126 at 25 5). E.F. does not explain why he will be required to pursue this convoluted process if his 26 request for a stay is denied. 27 Defendants argue there is no need for a stay. Defendants focus on their belief that 28 E.F.’s state-law claims have already been resolved in that they were dismissed based on 1 the improper notice of claim E.F. previously attempted to serve. Thus, Defendants believe 2 any attempt to amend the complaint after E.F. served another notice of claim would be 3 futile. 4 At present, there is no basis to stay this case. This does not preclude E.F. from 5 pursuing whatever course of action he believes appropriate. Thus, if E.F. wishes to prepare 6 and serve another notice of claim, he is free to do so. If, after service of a new notice of 7 claim, E.F. wishes to attempt to amend the complaint in this case to include state-law 8 claims, he must file the appropriate motion and make the requisite showings, including that 9 he was diligent. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 10 1992) (noting in context of seeking amendment to scheduling order “carelessness is not 11 compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief”). 12 II. Motion to Seal 13 When responding to the amended complaint, Defendant Kaplan-Siekman filed a 14 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits A and B to her Motion to Dismiss Under Seal (Doc. 15 144). That motion argues “A.R.S. § 8-807(U) and Arizona Rule of Juvenile Procedure 16 313(a) require” the exhibits be filed under seal. The provisions of Arizona law regarding 17 confidentiality may not apply in federal litigation. Moreover, the lodged exhibits have 18 been redacted to remove E.F.’s name. Those redactions may eliminate the need to seal the 19 exhibits. The proper filing of this type of document may recur in this case. Therefore, the 20 parties will be required to confer and file a statement setting forth their positions on two 21 issues. First, whether Arizona’s various confidentiality laws or rules govern in federal 22 court. And second, whether redactions are sufficient to allow for documents, such as those 23 lodged by Kaplan-Siekman, to be filed on the public docket. 24 III. Motion for Extension of Time 25 The parties have stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the 26 motion to dismiss filed by some of the defendants on January 4, 2023. Other defendants 27 filed motions to dismiss on January 10, 2023. (Doc. 143, 143, 147). To avoid additional 28 requests for extension of time, the Court will set a single deadline for all responses. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Stay (Doc. 126) is DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Leave to File Exhibits A and B to 4|| her Motion to Dismiss Under Seal (Doc. 144) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No || later than January 24, 2023, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the filing of 6 || juvenile records as set forth above. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 148) is 8 || GRANTED to the extent the response to Doc. 140, as well as the responses to Doc. 143, 146, and 147 shall be filed no later than January 31, 2023. 10 Dated this 18th day of January, 2023. 11 fo - 12 —

14 Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-