Sweet v. Mesa, City of

Opinion

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

9 Laney Sweet, No. CV-17-00152-PHX-GMS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Mesa, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants City of Mesa, Brian Elmore, Christopher Doane, 17 and Bryan Cochran’s (“City of Mesa Defendants”) Motion for Leave to Redact Portions of 18 Defendants’ Second Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment Briefing and Seal 19 Exhibits 1–8, (Doc. 603,) and Defendant Charles Langley’s Motion to Seal Supplemental 20 Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder in Applicable Arguments Presented by 21 Co-Defendants. (Doc. 615). For the following reasons, the Mesa Defendants’ and 22 Defendant Langley’s motions are denied. 23 DISCUSSION 24 I. Motions to Seal 25 A party seeking to seal “motions for summary judgment and related attachments” 26 must overcome a “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” Kamakana v. City and 27 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), by articulating “compelling 28 reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, compelling reasons exist when the relevant 2 documents “‘might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 3 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 4 release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 5 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 6 dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 7 order.”1 Id. 8 The Mesa Defendants’ motion seeks to seal certain exhibits and redact portions of 9 their second supplemental briefing for their motion for summary judgment, relating to the 10 existence of a common law marriage between Plaintiff and the decedent. (Doc. 603.) They 11 also seek to seal and redact materials related to deposition testimony of two former Mesa 12 Police Department officers whose depositions have been designated as confidential 13 pursuant to the protective order in this case. (Doc. 603; Doc. 111.) Defendant Langley’s 14 motion seeks to seal all exhibits and redact certain portions of his supplemental briefing 15 for his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 615 at 2.) However, neither the Mesa 16 Defendants nor Defendant Langley have met their burden to articulate compelling reasons 17 supported by specific factual findings why the public should not have access to these 18 materials, beyond merely referencing the protective order. (Doc. 603 at 1; Doc. 615 at 2;) 19 see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Their motions for leave to redact portions of their second 20 supplemental briefing and to file certain exhibits under seal are denied. 21 CONCLUSION 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Mesa Defendants’ Motion for Leave to 23 Redact Portions of Defendants’ Second Supplement to Motion to Summary Judgment 24 Briefing and Seal Exhibits 1–8, (Doc. 603,) is DENIED. The Mesa Defendants shall file 25 their Second Supplement to Summary Judgment Briefing and all accompanying exhibits 26 in the public record within five (5) days of this Order. The Mesa Defendants are permitted

27 1 Pursuant to the terms of the protective order governing the parties in this case, “[b]efore any party files any document under seal such party shall seek leave of Court and shall show 28 ‘compelling reasons’ (dispositive motion) or ‘good cause’ (non-dispositive motion) for filing under seal.” (Doc. 111 at 8.) to redact only personally identifying information, including phone numbers, email 2|| addresses, mailing addresses, any online account information, and social security numbers. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Langley’s Motion to Seal Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder in Applicable Arguments || Presented by Co-Defendants, (Doc. 615), is DENIED. Defendant Langley shall file his 6 || Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgement and Joinder in Applicable Arguments || Presented by Co-Defendants and all accompanying exhibits in the public record within five 8 || (5) days of this Order. Defendant Langley is permitted to redact only personally identifying 9|| information, including phone numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, any online 10 || account information, and social security numbers. 11 Dated this 7th day of October, 2021. Wars ) B A Whacrsay Fotos 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-