Maricopa, County of v. Office Depot Incorporated

Filing 217

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Maricopa County's Motion to Allow Filing Under Seal (Doc. 215 ) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 11/13/19. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

County of Maricopa, et al.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-01372-PHX-DWL

Office Depot Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Maricopa County’s Motion to Allow Filing

16

Under Seal. (Doc. 215.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied without

17

prejudice.

18

The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that

19

a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of

20

access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To

21

do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

22

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

23

disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The

24

Court must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the

25

party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation

26

marks omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain

27

judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

28

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation

1

marks omitted).

2

The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their

3

attachments where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.”

4

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

Maricopa County seeks to file its “summary judgment fact statement and attachments

6

thereto” under seal. (Doc. 215 at 1.) The “compelling reasons” standard applies.

7

Maricopa County gives no reasons whatsoever to justify sealing, other than the

8

assertion that the documents at issue were designated as confidential. (Doc. 215 at 2.)

9

This is insufficient. (Doc. 37 ¶ 14 [“This Order does not authorize the filing of any

10

document under seal.”]). Maricopa County has not attempted to “articulate compelling

11

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access

12

and the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79

13

(emphasis added); see also LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion or stipulation to file a document

14

under seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the

15

filing of the document under seal . . . .”)

16

Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that Maricopa County

17

wishes to try again, it must include—for each document it wishes to file under seal—a

18

specific description of the document and compelling reasons for sealing that document,

19

supported by specific facts. The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts

20

provided are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify

21

sealing the documents.

22

Accordingly,

23

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Maricopa County’s Motion to Allow

24
25

Filing Under Seal (Doc. 215).
Dated this 13th day of November, 2019.

26
27
28

-2-