Melendres v. Skinner

Opinion

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

9 Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., No. CV-07-02513-PHX-GMS

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 County of Maricopa, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Motion to Seal 17 Portion of the Transcript [Doc. 3005] of the May 2, 2024 Motion Hearing (Doc. 3009). 18 For the reasons stated below that motion is denied. 19 Defendant is correct that the Court held the discussion at issue at sidebar because 20 the MCSO official involved with the matter was not yet aware of the perceptions that gave 21 rise to the sidebar conference, nor the Court’s proposed manner to resolve it going forward. 22 Thus, the Court desired to provide that person with advisement prior to any further 23 discussion of the issue in open court. Nevertheless, the matter is more than tangentially 24 related to the merits of the lawsuit. 25 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr for Auto 26 Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) quoting Foltz v. State 27 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When the information 28 sought to be removed from the public eye is more than tangentially related to the merits of 1 || acase, prior to authorizing the redaction of information, the Court must find “a compelling 2|| reason and articulate[] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 3|| conjecture.” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97 quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9" Cir. 2006). 5 As the Sheriff points out, it may be appropriate to seal matters where a party seeks 6|| to “gratify private spite or promote public scandal,” Ctr. For Autor Safety, 809 F.3d at 7\| 1097. But while a concern is raised in the record, no conclusions were arrived at — 8 || especially in light of the absence of the official. There was merely a procedure set forth 9|| for dealing with any possible continuing concerns going forward that would provide notice 10 || to those concerned. The Sheriff provides nothing beyond conjecture suggesting that the 11 || matter was raised or could be used to gratify private spite or promote a public scandal. 12 Nevertheless, because the Sheriffs publication of the transcript during the 90 days 13 || in which redactions may be made violates court policy, Guide to Judiciary Policy 14|| § 510.25.10, the attachment to Doc. 3009, Doc. 3009-1, is stricken. 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Defendant’s Motion to Seal Portion of the Transcript of the May 2, 2024 Motion Hearing (Doc. 3009). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking attachment Doc. 3009-1. 18 Dated this 17th day of May, 2024. 19 W, 20 A Whacrsay Fotos 7] Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-