Torres v. QuikTrip Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00841
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Martha Torres, No. CV-22-00841-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 QuikTrip Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant QuikTrip Corporation’s (“Defendant”) 16 motion to seal Exhibit 1, which is attached to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 17 (Doc. 67). Exhibit 1 is video surveillance footage of the QuikTrip gasoline bay area from 18 the night of the incident in this case. (Doc. 65-1). 19 The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that 20 a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of 21 access.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To 22 do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 23 that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. 24 at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must then 25 “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 26 keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). “After 27 considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base 28 its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 1 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The 2 “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their attachments 3 where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto 4 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A motion for 5 summary judgment is clearly such a motion, and the “compelling reasons” standard applies 6 to the motion and its exhibits. 7 In January 2024, Defendant’s counsel submitted a similar motion to seal in another 8 QuikTrip case in this district. This Court adopts the same reasoning:

9 Defendant argues that “the public’s interest in viewing the subject slip and fall on the surveillance video is not at all compelling” because Defendant’s motion 10 “describes in detail the key events that are shown on the video that are relevant to its liability argument.” That argument lacks merit. A description in a motion has no 11 evidentiary value; a video exhibit does. To the extent members of the public may be interested in this case, they would likely be interested in this evidence, and they 12 have a right of access to it unless Defendant has compelling reasons that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. Defendant’s argument turns the Kamakana 13 standard on its head—it is not incumbent upon the public to have compelling reasons to have access to litigation materials but rather it is incumbent upon 14 Defendant to provide compelling reasons why the public’s general right of access should be curtailed. . . . Thus, Defendant has not provided compelling reasons to 15 submit [the exhibit] under seal.

16 Lux v. QuikTrip Corp., No. CV-22-01754-PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 4785689, at *1 (D. Ariz. 17 Jan. 31, 2024) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, many of [Defendant’s] security 18 concerns are belied by screenshots from the same security footage attached elsewhere.” 19 Peera v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 22-CV-05649-NC, 2023 WL 7106886, at *2 (N.D. 20 Cal. Sept. 20, 2023); (Doc. 69 at 3-4; Doc. 69-1 at 2-3; Doc. 69-2 at 2; Doc. 70 at 13; Doc. 21 70-7 at 2). 22 In Lux, Defendant’s counsel proffered a remedy not offered here: to “submit a 23 modified version of the video clip that does not require use of the software to play, does 24 not reveal the entire scope of what is captured by the camera, and does not reveal 25 Defendant’s proprietary business practices or areas of Defendant’s store that are not 26 accessible to the public.” Id. The Court, seeing no reason why this alternative remedy is 27 not equally workable in this case, finds that Defendant may submit a modified version of 28 1 || the video in the public record.! 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 67) is DENIED. If 4|| Defendant wants the Court to consider Exhibit 1, Defendant must resubmit the exhibit for 5 || filing in the public record within five (5) days of entry of this order, in accordance with || LRCiv 5.6(e). 7 Dated this 19th day of February, 2025. 8 ? '

ll _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Here, too, “Defendant should ensure that whatever it needs to rely on for evidentiary 28 support is contained in the modified version of the video.” Lux, 2024 WL 4785689, at *1

-3-