Rizik v. Virnig

Opinion

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

9 Angelica Rizik, et al., No. CV-25-00776-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jake William Virnig, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties jointly move to seal documents that have been sealed in other 16 proceedings. (Doc. 24.) Those documents are “more than tangentially related to the 17 underlying cause[s] of action,” requiring the parties show “compelling reasons” for filing 18 under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 19 2016). The documents contain personal information, including multiple pictures of a 20 minor. Protecting the privacy of that minor provides a compelling reason for sealing these 21 documents and the motion is granted. 22 Defendants Jake Virnig, Stephen Rayment, and Systech International filed separate 23 motions to dismiss. (Doc. 23, 26, 27.) Those motions significantly overlap and purport to 24 incorporate by reference arguments made in the other motions. To avoid duplicative 25 briefing, plaintiffs are allowed only one consolidated response to the three motions, and 26 defendants a consolidated reply. In the future, multiple defendants represented by the same 27 counsel may not file separate Rule 12 motions. 28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Seal (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. The lodged || documents (Doc. 25) shall be filed under seal. This order shall not be sealed. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiffs shall file a single consolidated opposition to the motions to dismiss. That opposition may not exceed 30 pages in length. Defendants || shall file a consolidated reply of no more than seventeen pages. 6 Dated this 11th day of July, 2025. 7 8 “/ {if Vo Vy f oy G. / , 9 oe Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-