L.M.W. v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 L.M.W., individually, and as the biological No. CV-22-00777-PHX-JAT father and on behalf of L.W., a minor., Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 On September 21, 2023, this Court issued an Order that included: “…Plaintiff shall 16 file an unredacted copy of the complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order. [Footnote] 17 During the Court’s consideration of this Motion the Court attempted to read the complaint, 18 but it is so heavily redacted that significant portions cannot be understood.” (Doc. 92 at 19 4). Plaintiff has responded to this Order by moving to file an unredacted copy of the 20 complaint under seal. 21 Plaintiff’s motion addresses 3 categories of information: 1) the “minor’s” real name; 22 2) the minor’s father’s real name; and 3) the allegations in the complaint. Turning to the 23 “minor’s” name, generally, the name of a minor can be represented as initials without Court 24 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. Plaintiff makes no argument, and the Court finds none, that 25 would justify further redaction beyond the use of initials. Yet, that is what the publicly 26 filed copy of the complaint (Doc. 1) does; it redacts the names rather than using initials. 27 These redactions make it very difficult to understand the complaint at points. Plaintiff has 28 not justified filing a redacted complaint (as the only complaint in the public record) rather 1 than using initials. The motion to seal does not address or cure this issue. 2 “Any minor” brings the Court to the next issue. From the documents the Court 3 reviewed to rule on the parties’ most recent discovery disputes, the Court believes that 4 L.W. is no longer a minor. This raises two important issues: 1) Does Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 5.2 apply after a minor reaches the age of majority; and 2) Does L.W.’s father 6 continue to have legal standing to represent him if he has reached the age of majority 7 (assuming L.W.’s father has not been appointed as his conservator by the state courts)? 8 Both of these questions lead the Court to call for briefing on whether L.W. needs to be 9 substituted in as an additional Plaintiff in this case. The Court will further call for briefing 10 regarding under what legal authority can L.W. continue to be know by only his initials if 11 he is an adult. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993). 12 The second category of information at issue is whether L.W.’s father can be known 13 by his initials. The further briefing on cause to allow L.W. to continue to be known by his 14 initials–which must include legal citations and arguments– should include whether L.W.’s 15 father should also be known by his initials. 16 The final category of information is certain details of the alleged abuse. Regarding 17 this category of information, Plaintiff states: “Plaintiff only made minimal 18 redactions…related to…the particularly sensitive and specific allegations of sexual 19 misconduct…. [T]he specific allegations of sexual misconduct are not central to the claims 20 asserted by Plaintiff.” (Doc. 93 at 2). Generally, the complaint is “central” to the case. See 21 Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In this circuit, we start with a 22 strong presumption in favor of access to court records” and requiring the district court, 23 prior to sealing to, “consider all relevant factors, including: the public interest in 24 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 25 improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade 26 secrets.... After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base 27 its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 28 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (requiring a party to show compelling reasons to seal any information □□ central to the case). 4 Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that the complaint is central to the case, but argues 5 || that Plaintiff chose to put highly sensitive, personal information in the complaint for little || reason since the descriptions “are not central to the claims asserted by Plaintiff.” To redact 7\|| factual allegations from the complaint, Plaintiff must make a legal showing that the strong 8 || presumption of public access is outweighed. On this record, the Court is not inclined to find that the facts that form the basis of the causes of action are not “central” to the case. || However, because the Court will require briefing on the foregoing issues, the Court will 11 || allow Plaintiff to more robustly brief why the facts of this case should not be public record, particularly if L.W. is allowed to proceed by only his initials. See Does I Thru XXIII v. 13 || Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 Based on the foregoing, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a supplement to the motion to seal (Doc. || 93) within 14 days. If Defendants seek to be heard on the motion, as supplemented, they shall respond within 14 days of the supplement being filed. Plaintiff may reply within 7 18 || days. 19 Dated this 13th day of October, 2023. 20 21 a 3 22 James A. Teilborg 23 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-3-