Rizik v. Virnig

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

Jake William Virnig, et al.,

Defendants. The parties jointly move to seal documents that have been sealed in other proceedings. (Doc. 24.) Those documents are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” requiring the parties show “compelling reasons” for filing under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2016). The documents contain personal information, including multiple pictures of a minor. Protecting the privacy of that minor provides a compelling reason for sealing these documents and the motion is granted. Defendants Jake Virnig, Stephen Rayment, and Systech International filed separate motions to dismiss. (Doc. 23, 26, 27.) Those motions significantly overlap and purport to incorporate by reference arguments made in the other motions. To avoid duplicative briefing, plaintiffs are allowed only one consolidated response to the three motions, and defendants a consolidated reply. In the future, multiple defendants represented by the same counsel may not file separate Rule 12 motions. 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. 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. Dated this 11th day of July, 2025. “/ {if Vo Vy f oy G. / , oe Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge

-2-