O'Connor v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation et al
ORDER denying 26 Ex Parte Motion to Seal Documents Attached to the Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/21/13. (MAP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kimberly A. O'Connor,
Scottsdale Healthcare Corp; et al.,
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motion for an Order
Sealing Documents Attached to but not part of Complaint and Mistakenly Filed. (Doc.
26). The Court now rules on the Motion.
Historically, the public has a right to inspect judicial documents and records.
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). However, such a right is not
absolute. Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial
records. A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this
presumption by either meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the filing is a
dispositive pleading, or the “good cause” standard if the filing is a non-dispositive
pleading. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff asks the Court to seal two documents that were inadvertently filed with
the complaint in this action on November 17, 2011 (the “Complaint”). Plaintiff describes
these inadvertently filed documents as two pages of correspondence between Plaintiff
and a state agency regarding highly confidential financial information and Plaintiff’s
Social Security number. (Doc. 26 at 3).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion because Plaintiff has failed to clearly
identify what documents she wants sealed and because no such documents as Plaintiff
has described exist in the Court’s record of the Complaint. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is
forty-four pages long. It contains thirty-eight pages of claims against Defendants, two
attachments, and a civil cover sheet.
Both attachments are referenced in the body of the Complaint and are clearly not
inadvertently filed documents. Attachment A is referenced on page ten of the Complaint
and is a “Service Animal Information” packet. (Id. at 39-42). The attachment consists of
four pages, each individually numbered “Page 1 of 4” and so forth. Attachment B is
referenced on page nineteen of the Complaint and is the death certificate of Plaintiff’s
mother, Marihelen S. O’Connor. (Id. at 43). The last page of the Complaint is the Civil
Cover Sheet required by the Court to be filed with the Complaint. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). The
Court finds the Complaint contains no documents that are correspondence between a state
agency and Plaintiff, nor does it contain documents exposing Plaintiff’s Social Security
number. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under Kamakana and show
that the judicial record in this case should be sealed.
The two attachments are Attachments A and B.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motion to Seal Documents Attached to
the Complaint (Doc. 26) is denied.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?