Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al

Filing 2819

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Documents (Doc. 2785 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the following documents: Docs. 1625 , 1662 , 1674 , 1710 , 1725 , 1766 , 1767 , 1768 , 1795 , 1800 , 1819 , 1820 , 1881 , 1882 , 1883 , 1928 , 1951 , 2002 , 2209 , 2271 , 2297 , 2320 , 2367 , 2438 , 2451 , 2473 , 2492 , 2526 , 2542 , 2563 , 2589 , 2629 , 2686 , 2715 , 2752 , 2778 . (See document for further details). Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 9/29/2022. (LAD)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 4

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.

10
11
12

No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,

13

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

14
15
16
17

v.
Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
Defendants.

18
19

Before the Court is Proposed Intervenors the Associated Press (“AP”), and

20

journalists Jacques Billeaud and Jude Joffe-Block’s (collectively, “Intervenors”) Motion

21

to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Challenging Sealing of Records and Motion to

22

Unseal Records (Doc. 2785.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

23

BACKGROUND

24

Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of

25

requesting that certain documents be unsealed. The Intervenors filed the motion to

26

intervene and unseal documents on July 13, 2022. Specifically, Intervenors request to

27

unseal quarterly status reports pertaining to Armendariz Investigations spanning between

28

April 2017 to August 2022. Intervenors also request that the Court unseal documents

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 4

1

related to various other administrative and criminal investigations. Plaintiffs do not oppose

2

the intervention or unsealing of these documents and echoed Proposed Intervenors

3

arguments that the Court should direct that the documents be unsealed. Sheriff Penzone

4

and MCSO do not oppose the motion to intervene or unseal but maintain that “if any new

5

Armendariz Investigations are opened in the future, any reports or other information about

6

such investigations should be filed with the Court under seal and should remain under seal

7

during the pendency of those investigations.” (Doc. 2797 at 4.)

8
9

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Intervene

10

The Court construes Intervenors’ request to intervene as a request for permissive

11

intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). “Nonparties seeking access to

12

judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking permissive intervention.” San Jose

13

Mercury News v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit

14

has explicitly recognized that “the press and other interested third parties retain their right

15

to intervene and request that particular documents be unsealed.” United States v. Gurolla,

16

333 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2003). Additionally, a “non-party moving to intervene solely

17

for the purpose of accessing records need not show a nexus of fact or law with the main

18

action.” Muhaymin v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-17-04565-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 5173767,

19

at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2021).

20

Here, Intervenors are journalists and a news organization who have reported

21

extensively on this case. (Doc. 2785.) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants oppose their

22

intervention for the limited purpose of filing their motion to unseal documents. Because

23

the Intervenors seek to vindicate the public’s right of access, the Court grants their motion

24

to intervene for that limited purpose.

25

II.

Motion to Unseal Documents

26

The next issue before the Court is whether to unseal the documents that Intervenors

27

allege fail to satisfy the criteria to remain sealed. The proper standard when considering

28

whether to seal the documents is whether the party filing the document offers “compelling

-2-

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 3 of 4

1

reasons” for the document to be filed under seal. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

2

447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). The compelling reasons standard highlights the

3

fact that “[i]n this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court

4

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

Additionally, if sensitive information can be redacted “while leaving other meaningful

6

information,” rather than “only meaningless connective words and phrases,” redaction is

7

preferred. Id. at 1137.

8
9

Intervenors seek to unseal nearly forty documents that were previously filed under
seal.

Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants oppose the motion to unseal.

Most of the

10

documents that Intervenors request to be unsealed relate to Armendariz Investigations or

11

other related internal investigations.

12

Armendariz Investigations have now been completed so the majority of the filings

13

Intervenors seek to have unsealed relate to closed investigations. Because the filings do

14

not relate to open investigations, Defendant does not seek to show compelling reasons why

15

the documents should remain sealed. (Doc. 2797 at 3.) In the absence of any compelling

16

reasons why the documents pertaining to closed investigations should remain sealed, the

17

presumption of public access favors unsealing these documents.

Defendant acknowledges that the majority of

18

At this time, is not necessary for the Court to decide at this time which hypothetical

19

future filings related to new internal investigations should be filed under seal. Defendants

20

should continue to file motions to seal for documents containing highly sensitive

21

information. If Defendants believe a document should be sealed, Defendants should lodge

22

the document under seal and file a motion to seal articulating the compelling reasons for

23

sealing the document in full. If the Court finds those reasons insufficient or finds that the

24

highly sensitive information contained in the filings “can be redacted with minimal effort,”

25

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137, it will require Defendants to file a redacted version on the public

26

docket.

27

The last issue is how Defendants should proceed in light of discovering previously

28

filed quarterly reports that were filed with missing data. (Doc. 2797 at 5.) In responding

-3-

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 4 of 4

1

to this motion to unseal documents, MCSO explained that it identified certain reports in

2

which “certain rows of data were inadvertently omitted from some of the under-seal

3

filings.” (Doc. 2797 at 5.) MCSO has explained that the spreadsheet is cumulative and

4

therefore closed reports do not get deleted from the spreadsheet. This means that the most

5

recent version of the report contains all the investigations that should have been included

6

in the incomplete reports, as well as any new investigations opened since then. Because

7

MCSO has represented that the most recent version of the spreadsheet contains the most

8

current information about all Armendariz investigations, the incomplete filings do not omit

9

information that would otherwise be unavailable if MCSO does not update the filings.

10

Further, because the most recent filing will be made available to the public as a result of

11

the instant motion, the public will nevertheless have access to all of the information that

12

was omitted from the original filings. As such, MCSO need not file updated versions of

13

the spreadsheets.

14

CONCLUSION

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and

17

Motion to Unseal Documents (Doc. 2785) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the following

19

documents: Docs. 1625, 1662, 1674, 1710, 1725, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1795, 1800, 1819,

20

1820, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1928, 1951, 2002, 2209, 2271, 2297, 2320, 2367, 2438, 2451,

21

2473, 2492, 2526, 2542, 2563, 2589, 2629, 2686, 2715, 2752, 2778.

22

Dated this 29th day of September, 2022.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-