O.E.O. v. Figueroa

Opinion

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

9 O.E.O., No. CV-25-02283-PHX-DWL (MTM)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Fred Figueroa, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On June 30, 2025, Petitioner O.E.O., who is currently confined in the Eloy 16 Detention Center, filed a Complaint and Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he 17 is a fifteen-year-old unaccompanied minor who is being detained as an adult at the Eloy 18 Detention center and faces imminent expedited removal. (Doc. 1.) 19 On August 15, 2025, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file the administrative 20 records prepared by ICE and ORR without redactions and under seal. (Doc. 40.) 21 Respondents assert that because Petitioner “claims to be a minor,” his name and date of 22 birth must be redacted from the record, but because the records are lengthy—“[w]hile 23 ICE’s administrative record is under 150 pages, ORR’s record is over 4300 pages”— 24 “[t]rying to redact the administrative records for filing on the public docket is not possible 25 given the time constraint.” (Id.) 26 Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that certain information 27 be redacted from most court filings, including minors’ names, which must be replaced with 28 initials, and birthdates (except for the year of birth). However, this redaction requirement 1 “does not apply” to certain filings, including “the record of an administrative or agency 2 proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b). Furthermore, because this is an immigration case, 3 public access to the administrative record (and many other filings on the docket) is 4 somewhat limited, as a member of the public cannot electronically access these filings 5 electronically and must physically visit the courthouse to view them. Nevertheless, 6 because this limitation does not entirely shield the documents from public view the way 7 that sealing would, the Court must consider Respondents’ sealing request. 8 The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that 9 a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of 10 access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A 11 party seeking to shield judicial records and documents from public inspection must 12 “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 13 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 14 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must then “conscientiously 15 balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 16 judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). “After considering 17 these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision 18 on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 19 hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies when the information sought 21 to be sealed is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 22 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). “Because the 23 administrative record is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court 24 applies the compelling reasons standard.” D. G. by & through Goan v. Alpine Union Sch. 25 Dist., 2025 WL 622615, *1 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 26 Every motion to seal must identify the legal standard applicable to the document at 27 issue and explain why the material sought to be sealed meets that standard. LRCiv 5.6(b) 28 (“Any motion or stipulation to file a document under seal must set forth a clear statement 1 of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under seal.”). 2 Respondents assert only that the inconvenience of redacting a voluminous record justifies 3 sealing the record in its entirety. However, as discussed above, administrative and agency 4 records are exempt from the redaction requirement of Rule 5.2. 5 Furthermore, notwithstanding the exemptions set forth in Rule 5.2, sealing 6 documents because they contain Petitioner’s date of birth would make no sense within the 7 context of this action, where Petitioner’s age is precisely what is at issue. Courts routinely 8 find that where a litigant puts his or her sensitive information at issue, that information 9 does not meet the sealing standard. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Hasbro Inc., 2016 WL 9137526, 10 *3 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“Hasbro put these documents at issue in the litigation and thus fails 11 to [] make a particularized showing of compelling reason[s] to file these exhibits 12 under seal.”); B.F. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 4597492, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“By 13 bringing this lawsuit against Defendants, [Plaintiffs] have put [information sought to be 14 sealed] directly at issue, and cannot reasonably expect filings in this case not to include 15 details about [that information].”). So too, Petitioner’s name—while not itself a matter of 16 dispute—is part of his basic identity, and to the extent the documents in the administrative 17 record bear on the dispute regarding his age, they can only do so to the extent they can be 18 linked to him, generally by including his name. 19 Furthermore, Respondents—who maintain that Petitioner is not a minor—have no 20 interest in sealing the documents. 21 On the other hand, Petitioner has been proceeding anonymously thus far in this 22 action. Although perhaps the chances are slim that a member of the public will take the 23 time to visit the courthouse to inspect the filings in this case that are protected from remote 24 access by Rule 5.2(c), such an event is possible and would undermine Petitioner’s 25 anonymity. Before Petitioner’s anonymity is compromised by unsealed filing of the 26 administrative record in unredacted form, Petitioner should have the opportunity to be 27 heard regarding whether the Advanced Textile factors favor anonymity. See, e.g., Doe v. 28 Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042-46 (9th Cir. 2010) □□ (recognizing “the paramount importance of open courts” and affirming district court 2|| decision that minors may not proceed anonymously where “the public interest weighs 3 || against anonymity” and the other factors did not tip the balance). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to seal (Doc. 40) is denied without 6|| prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by September 3, 2025, Petitioner shall file 8 || either (1) a motion for leave to continue to proceed anonymously and a motion to seal the || administrative record or (2) a notice of non-opposition to filing an unsealed and unredacted 10 || administrative record and non-opposition to proceeding under Petitioner’s name. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative record shall remain lodged 12 || under seal in the meantime. This will not affect the briefing schedule and will not delay 13} resolution of this action. 14 Dated this 19th day of August, 2025. 15 16 Lm ee” 17 f t _o—— Dominic W, Lanza 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-