Muhaymin v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 376

AMENDED ORDER ORDER that the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED to the extent they seek permission to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of moving to u nseal judicial records. FURTHER ORDERED the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent they seek to unseal court records as follows (see order for details/deadlines). FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, all parties should take special care to comply with Rule 5.2 to avoid the needless sealing of documents that easily could and should have been redacted in the first place. FURTH ER ORDERED that, going forward, any party moving to seal a document must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the nature of the filing) for such relief. The mere fact that a party has designated information as confidential is no t, without more, good cause or a compelling reason. Furthermore, documents will not be sealed in their entirety if good cause or compelling reasons justify sealing only discrete portions. In such circumstances, publicly available redacted versions of the relevant documents will be required. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Motion Regarding Sealed Pleadings (Doc. 374 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties should confer and, if appropriate, may submit a revised stipulation that accounts of the requirements of this order. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/3/21. (MAP)

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 13

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Mussalina Muhaymin, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

AMENDED ORDER1

v.

12

No. CV-17-04565-PHX-DLR

City of Phoenix, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court are three motions to intervene for the limited purpose of moving

17

to unseal judicial records. (Docs. 357, 358, 363.) These motions were filed by Muslim

18

Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney, respectively (collectively

19

“Proposed Intervenors”). Each motion contains two requests: (1) for permission to

20

intervene in this matter and (2) for the Court to unseal judicial records. The Court will

21

grant the first request in full and grant the second request in part.
I.

22

Permissive Intervention

23

“Nonparties seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking

24

permissive intervention[.]” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court—N. Dist. (San

25

Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) governs

26

permissive intervention and provides, in relevant part, that “on timely motion, the court

27

may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main

28

1

Amending the Court’s Order (Doc. 375) to correct a typo on page 11, line 23. Reference
to Doc. 144-1 remaining under seal should have been Doc. 114-1.

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 13

1

action a common question of law or fact.” Thus, “[p]ermissive intervention to litigate a

2

claim on the merits under Rule 24(b) requires (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction;

3

(2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant’s

4

claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.,

5

966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). But when permissive intervention is

6

sought only for the limited purpose of moving to unseal judicial records—rather than to

7

litigate claim on the merits—the first and third elements do not apply. Id. at 473-74.

8

Instead, the Court’s discretion is guided by the timeliness of the motion and “whether the

9

intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).

11

Defendants oppose the Proposed Intervenors’ motions to intervene, arguing that

12

Muslim Advocates and Stickney lack “standing” to intervene because they do not have a

13

sufficient interest in this litigation, that all Proposed Intervenors waited too long to

14

intervene, and that intervention at this time would unduly prejudice the existing parties by

15

diverting resources away from trial preparation. (Docs. 364, 365, 371.)

16

The Court rejects the first argument; as already noted, a non-party moving to

17

intervene solely for the purpose of accessing records need not show a nexus of fact or law

18

with the main action. Beckman, 966 F.2d at 474. Moreover, the public has a common law

19

right to access court records. San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1100. As members of

20

the public, all Proposed Intervenors have “standing,” to use Defendants’ chosen term, to

21

seek such access.

22

The Court also finds all three motions timely. Here, the motions to intervene were

23

filed less than two years after the Court first began sealing documents in this case (Doc.

24

99), and mere weeks after the Court sealed its order on Defendants’ summary judgment

25

motion (Doc. 352), which, together with the summary judgment briefing, are the highest

26

priority items to which the Proposed Intervenors seek access. (Doc. 358 at 6.) “[D]elays

27

measured in years have been tolerated where an intervenor is pressing the public’s right of

28

access to judicial records.” San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1101.

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 3 of 13

1

Lastly, the Court does not find Defendants’ arguments concerning prejudice to be

2

persuasive. The mere fact that Defendants will need to explain why the relevant records

3

should remain sealed is not, itself, unduly prejudicial. It is, after all, their burden to

4

establish that either good cause or compelling reasons justify curtailing the public’s right

5

to access judicial records. Moreover, the Court recently rescheduled the trial in this matter

6

to begin on April 25, 2022. (Doc. 359.) This schedule leaves plenty of time to adjudicate

7

the merits of the Proposed Intervenors’ motions to unseal without adversely impacting the

8

parties’ trial preparations.

9
10
11

For these reasons, all three Proposed Intervenors will be granted permission to
intervene for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal records in this case.
II.

Propriety of Sealing Judicial Records

12

The public has a right to access judicial records. San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d

13

at 1101. The Court therefore begins “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court

14

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

15

party seeking to overcome this presumption and file a judicial record under seal generally

16

must provide a compelling reason for doing so. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

17

809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Examples of compelling reasons “include when a

18

court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, to circulate

19

libelous statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

20

competitive standing.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). A movant’s reason

21

for seeking to seal a judicial record must be supported by an articulable factual basis, rather

22

than “hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1096-97 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

23

The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to this general rule “for sealed

24

materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case.” Id. at 1097.

25

A party seeking to seal such materials “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’

26

standard.” Id. Although earlier decisions from the Ninth Circuit sometimes used the words

27

“dispositive” and “non-dispositive” to describe the dividing line between those records

28

governed by the compelling reasons standard and those governed by the good cause

-3-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 4 of 13

1

standard, the Ninth Circuit has since clarified that “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the motion

2

at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1099.

3

Sometimes non-dispositive motions are unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits

4

of a case; other times they “are strongly correlative to the merits of a case.” Id. The

5

exception to the ordinary compelling reasons standard applies only to judicial records that

6

are unrelated or merely tangentially related to the merits of a case. Sealing a record that is

7

more than tangentially related to the merits of a case requires a compelling justification.

8

Using this framework, the Court will address each sealed docket entry.

9

Docket Entry 99, filed under seal on November 20, 2019, is a Notice of Deposition

10

of a minor, A.M., filed by Defendants. This record was sealed because it contains the

11

minor’s full name in violation Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, which requires such information to be

12

redacted. (Docs. 299, 300.) When confronted with such non-compliant filings, it is the

13

undersigned’s practice to seal the document containing the private information and to order

14

the filing party to publicly file a version of the document that redacts the private

15

information. In this case, it appears that the Court ordered the non-compliant filing to be

16

sealed, but did not order that a publicly available, redacted version be filed. Accordingly,

17

Docket Entry 99 will remain sealed, but Defendants will be required to publicly file a

18

version of the document that complies with Rule 5.2.

19

Docket Entry 114-1, filed under seal on February 18, 2020, consists of Exhibits A-

20

J to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s motion to extend the expert disclosure deadline.

21

These exhibits were filed under seal because they contain private information that should

22

have been redacted per Rule 5.2. (Doc. 129, 131.) Docket Entry 114-1 will remain sealed,

23

and there is no need for Defendants to publicly file redacted versions because redacted

24

versions are already available on the public docket at Docket Entry 129-1.

25

Docket Entry 155, filed under seal on March 27, 2020, consists of Exhibits A and B

26

to Defendants’ Memorandum Re: Confidential Designation of Deposition Transcripts and

27

Videotapes. These filings are only tangentially related to the merits of the case. These

28

exhibits were sealed because they are settlement-related communications. (Doc. 115, 154.)

-4-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 5 of 13

1

Courts have recognized “a compelling need to protect settlement offers.” See Huang v.

2

Behpour, No. 11-cv-00456-SOM, 2012 WL 3201952, at *1 (D.Haw. Aug. 2, 2012); Hunt

3

v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 13-cv-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

4

Sep. 14, 2015). Docket Entry 155 will remain sealed.

5

Docket Entry 157, filed under seal on March 27, 2020, consists of Exhibits A and B

6

to Defendants’ Notice of Petition to Appoint Legal Representative on Behalf of Minor

7

Child Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-1408(A) and Motion to Stay Proceedings Until Legal

8

Representative is Appointed for Minor Child. In particular, these exhibits are records from

9

the Maricopa County Superior Court regarding the Petition for Appointment of Legal

10

Representative on Behalf of a Minor Child Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-1408(A). These

11

records were sealed because they contain “private information pertaining to decedent’s

12

minor daughter[.]” (Doc. 134, 156.) These records are only tangentially related to the

13

merits of this case.

14

subsequently withdrawn. (Doc. 149, 151.) Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates

15

that these records were sealed in state court, and if they are matters of public record in state

16

court then there appears to be no reason to seal them here. Moreover, the only private

17

information the Court can identify in these exhibits that is not already referenced in the

18

publicly available motion at Docket Entry 133 appears to be the minor’s full name.

19

Accordingly, although Docket Entry 157 will remain sealed, Defendants are directed to

20

publicly file versions of these documents that redact private information covered by Rule

21

5.2.

Indeed, the underlying motion to which they correspond was

22

Docket Entry 162, filed under seal on March 31, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’

23

Notice of Pending Stipulated Motion for Appointment of Statutory Representative for

24

Minor. The Exhibit is a copy of a stipulated motion filed in Maricopa County Superior

25

Court. It was filed under seal because it “contains private and sensitive information

26

pertaining to decedent’s minor daughter[.]” (Docs. 159, 161.) This record is only

27

tangentially related to the merits of this case. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates

28

that this record was sealed in state court, and if it is a matter of public record in state court

-5-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 6 of 13

1

then there appears to be no reason to seal it here. Moreover, the only private information

2

referenced in this document that is not already referenced in the publicly available Notice

3

at Docket Entry 158 appears to be the minor’s full name. Accordingly, although Docket

4

Entry 162 will remain sealed, Defendants are directed to publicly file a version of this

5

document that redacts private information covered by Rule 5.2.

6

Docket Entry 169, filed under seal on April 15, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’

7

Notice re: Order Appointing Statutory Representative for Minor. It was filed under seal

8

because it “contains private and sensitive information pertaining to decedent’s minor

9

daughter[.]” (Docs. 166, 168.) This record is only tangentially related to the merits of this

10

case. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates that this record was sealed in state court,

11

and if it is a matter of public record in state court then there appears to be no reason to seal

12

it here. Moreover, the only private information in the exhibit that is not already publicly

13

available is the minor’s full name. Accordingly, although Docket Entry 169 will remain

14

sealed, Defendants are ordered to publicly file a version of this record that redacts any

15

private information covered by Rule 5.2.

16

Docket Entry 186, filed under seal on June 2, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’

17

Supplement to Memorandum Re: Confidential Designation of Deposition Transcripts and

18

Videotapes and Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Order to Cease/Desist and

19

Remove Public Postings. This filing is only tangentially related to the merits of this case.

20

This record was sealed because it is a settlement-related communication. (Docs. 180, 185.)

21

Accordingly, Docket Entry 186 will remain under seal.

22

Docket Entry 192, filed under seal on June 10, 2020, is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

23

to File Second Amended Complaint. Docket Entry 197, filed under seal on June 24, 2020,

24

is Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

25

Complaint. And Docket Entry 211, filed under seal on August 25, 2020, is Plaintiff’s reply

26

in support of her Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. In the Court’s

27

judgment, a motion seeking leave to amend a complaint is more than merely tangentially

28

related to the merits of the case, and therefore compelling reasons are required before

-6-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 7 of 13

1

sealing such records. These documents were sealed for two reasons: (1) they contain and/or

2

reference information designated as confidential by Defendants pursuant to the parties’

3

protective order and (2) Defendants voiced concerns that Plaintiff’s counsel intended to

4

use this material to spread misinformation about and incite public disapproval of

5

Defendants. (Doc. 191, 196, 197.) The Court will address each reason in turn.

6

First, a party’s designation of a document as confidential pursuant to a protective

7

order is not, without more, a compelling reason or good cause for sealing that document

8

once it is used to support a submission with the Court. See San Jose Mercury News, 187

9

F.3d at 1103 (“Such blanket orders are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as

10

the party resisting disclosure generally has not made a particularized showing of good

11

cause with respect to any individual document.”); Marsteller v. MD Helicopter Inc., No.

12

CV-14-01788-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 5479927, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2017) (“Ordinarily

13

. . . a party’s designation of a document as confidential is not per se good cause.”). Once

14

a party decides to use a document to support a filing with the Court, the party asserting

15

confidentiality must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the

16

nature of the filing) for sealing the record and cannot merely rely on the fact that the party

17

subjectively believes the document is confidential and has chosen to designate it as such.

18

Indeed, paragraph 17 of the parties’ protective order reflects this rule:

19
20
21
22
23

In the event a party wishes to use any Confidential Information
in any papers filed in this action, that Party shall make a motion
to file such papers under seal with the Court pursuant to Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6, that sets forth the articulated bases
with specific factual findings demonstrating the compelling
reasons for sealing materials attached to dispositive motions
and/or the good cause for sealing other attached or used
materials.

24

(Doc. 72 at 7.) So, too, do this District’s Local Rules of Practice. See LRCiv. 5.6(b), (d).

25

And even if good cause or compelling reasons justify shielding some information in an

26

exhibit or motion from public view, it is inappropriate to shield the entire document.

27

Instead, it is the undersigned’s practice to order that an appropriately redacted version of

28

the document be publicly filed. Thus, the bare assertion that these filings contain and/or

-7-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 8 of 13

1

reference material designated by Defendants as confidential pursuant to the protective

2

order is inadequate to justify sealing the filings.

3

Second, there are rules governing extrajudicial statements made by lawyers. See

4

Ariz. R. Prof. Conduct E.R. 3.6; LRCiv. 83.8. If the Court finds that an attorney has

5

violated these rules, the Court may issue appropriate sanctions. But such sanctions are

6

meant to address the misconduct and deter future violations. Interested members of the

7

public should not be penalized for an attorney’s misconduct by having their rights to access

8

judicial record curtailed. Thus, Defendants’ concerns about potentially inappropriate

9

extrajudicial communications by Plaintiff’s counsel is not, standing alone, a sufficient

10

reason to seal judicial records. For these reasons, Docket Entries 192, 197, and 211 will

11

be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality

12

publicly submits proposed redacted versions and shows compelling reasons for the

13

proposed redactions.

14

Docket Entry 235, filed under seal on October 5, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’

15

Notice of Pending Stipulated Motion for Production of Certain Documents Pursuant to

16

A.R.S. § 8-807(K). It was filed under seal because it contains the full name of a minor in

17

violation of Rule 5.2. (Doc. 230, 234.) This document will remain sealed, but Defendants

18

are required to publicly file a version of the document that complies with Rule 5.2.

19

Docket Entry 237, filed under seal on October 8, 2020, is Defendant’s Expedited

20

Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions. Docket Entry 251, filed under seal

21

on January 8, 2021, is Defendants’ reply brief in connection with this motion. These filings

22

are only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Docket Entry 237 was filed under

23

seal because it contains and/or references information designated by Defendants as

24

confidential pursuant to the protective order. (Docs. 236, 238.) This, alone, is not good

25

cause. Docket Entry 237 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then,

26

Defendants publicly submit a proposed redacted version and show good cause for the

27

proposed redactions. Docket Entry 251 was filed under seal because it contains and/or

28

references information designated by Defendants as confidential and because it contains or

-8-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 9 of 13

1

references settlement-related communications. (Docs. 250, 290.) The settlement-related

2

communications are properly sealed, but the remainder is not. Accordingly, Docket Entry

3

251-4 will remain sealed, but the remainder of Docket Entry 251 will be unsealed on

4

December 1, 2021 unless, before then, Defendants publicly submit a proposed redacted

5

version and show good cause for the proposed redactions.

6

Docket Entry 263, filed under seal on November 23, 2020, is an order setting a

7

telephonic oral argument on Defendant’s Expedited Motion for Protective Order and

8

Motion for Sanctions. No party moved to seal this document, nothing on the docket

9

explains why this order is sealed, and upon review the Court finds that nothing in the order

10

needs to be sealed. Docket Entry 263 is unsealed.

11

Docket Entry 265, filed under seal on December 2, 2020, is the minute entry from

12

the oral argument on Defendant’s Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Motion for

13

Sanctions. Nothing on the docket explains why this minute entry is sealed, and the Court

14

sees nothing in the minute entry that needs to be sealed. Docket Entry 265 is unsealed.

15

Docket Entry 271, filed under seal on December 11, 2020, is the Court’s order on

16

Defendants’ Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions. This order

17

is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Nothing on the docket explains why

18

this order is sealed, but it appears that it was sealed because it references information

19

designated as confidential by Defendant. But the mere fact that a party designates

20

something as confidential is not, by itself, good cause. Docket Entry 271 will be unsealed

21

on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows good

22

cause for sealing or redacting it.

23

Docket Entries 273, 274, and 275, filed under seal on January 8, 2021, are

24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, separate statement of facts, and exhibits.

25

These filings are central to the merits of the case. They were sealed because they contain

26

and/or reference information designated as confidential by Defendants. (Doc. 272, 287.)

27

But this, alone, is not a compelling reason to seal a dispositive motion. Docket Entries

28

273, 274, and 275 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, Defendants

-9-

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 10 of 13

1

publicly submit proposed redacted versions and show compelling reasons for the proposed

2

redactions.

3

Docket Entries 291 and 292, filed under seal on February 1, 2021, are Plaintiff’s

4

response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, separate statement

5

of facts, and exhibits. These documents were filed under seal because they contain and/or

6

reference information designated as confidential by Defendants. (Doc. 287.) This, alone,

7

is not a compelling reason. Docket Entries 291 and 292 will be unsealed on December 1,

8

2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality submits proposed redacted

9

versions and shows compelling reasons for the proposed redactions.

10

Docket Entry 298, filed under seal on March 2, 2021, is Defendants’ reply in

11

connection with their summary judgment motion. This record was sealed for the same

12

reason the motion and response briefing was sealed. Docket Entry 298 will be unsealed on

13

December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality publicly submits

14

a proposed redacted version and shows compelling reasons for the proposed redactions.

15

Docket Entries 313, 315, 316, 317, 319, 326, 327, 328, 337, 338, 339, and 346

16

comprise the briefing on four separate motions to exclude expert testimony. In the Court’s

17

judgment, these motions are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and,

18

therefore, require compelling reasons for being sealed. These documents were sealed

19

because they contain and/or reference information designated by the parties as confidential

20

pursuant to the protective order. (Docs. 302, 305, 312, 320, 325, 343, 345.) These reasons

21

are insufficient. Docket Entries 313, 315, 316, 317, 319, 326, 327, 328, 337, 338, 339, and

22

346 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting

23

confidentiality publicly submits proposed redacted versions and shows compelling reasons

24

for the proposed redactions.

25

Docket Entry 332 is a sealed minute entry for a May 4, 2021 hearing. This minute

26

entry was sealed because the underlying hearing was sealed, and the underlying hearing

27

was sealed because it concerned pleadings that had been sealed. (Doc. 324.) Having

28

- 10 -

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 11 of 13

1

reviewed the minute entry, the Court concludes that it contains nothing that needs to be

2

sealed. Docket Entry 332 is unsealed.

3

Docket Entry 335, filed under seal on May 4, 2021, is a motion for sanctions filed

4

by Defendants. This motion is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. It was

5

sealed because it contains and/or references documents that were designated as confidential

6

by Defendants pursuant to the protective order. (Doc. 329, 334.) This alone is not good

7

cause. Docket Entry 335 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the

8

party asserting confidentiality publicly submits a proposed redacted version and shows

9

good cause for the proposed redactions.

10

Docket Entry 352 is the Court’s order on Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment. This order is central to the merits of the case. It was filed under seal because

12

the underlying summary judgment briefing was sealed. The Court does not find it

13

appropriate to seal a dispositive order absent a truly compelling justification. Docket Entry

14

352 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, any party asserting

15

confidentially shows compelling reasons for sealing or redacting it.

16

IT IS ORDERED that the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated

17

Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357, 358, 363) are GRANTED to the extent they seek

18

permission to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of moving to unseal judicial

19

records.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the

21

Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357, 358, 363) are GRANTED IN PART

22

and DENIED IN PART to the extent they seek to unseal court records as follows:

23
24

1. The following docket entries will remain under seal: Doc. 99, Doc. 114-1, Doc.
155, Doc. 157, Doc. 162, Doc. 169, Doc. 186, Doc. 235, Doc. 251-4.

25

2. By no later than December 1, 2021, the initially filing party shall publicly file

26

redacted versions of the following docket entries in a manner that complies with

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2: Doc. 99, Doc. 157, Doc. 162, Doc. 169,

28

Doc. 235.

- 11 -

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 12 of 13

1

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to immediately unseal the following: Doc.

2

263, Doc. 265, Doc. 332.

3

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Doc. 271 on December 1, 2021

4

unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows good cause for

5

sealing or redacting it.

6

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the following docket entries on

7

December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality

8

publicly submits a proposed redacted version and shows either good cause or

9

compelling reasons (depending on the nature of the filing) for the proposed

10

redactions: Doc. 192, Doc. 197, Doc. 211, Doc. 237, Doc. 251 (except Doc 251-

11

4, which will remain sealed), Doc. 273, Doc. 274, Doc. 275, Doc. 291, Doc. 292,

12

Doc. 298, Doc. 313, Doc. 315, Doc. 316, Doc. 317, Doc. 319, Doc. 326, Doc.

13

327, Doc. 328, Doc. 335, Doc. 337, Doc. 338, Doc. 339, Doc. 346.

14

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Doc. 352 on December 1, 2021

15

unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows compelling

16

reasons for sealing or redacting it.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, all parties should take special

18

care to comply with Rule 5.2 to avoid the needless sealing of documents that easily could

19

and should have been redacted in the first place.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, any party moving to seal a

21

document must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the nature of

22

the filing) for such relief. The mere fact that a party has designated information as

23

confidential is not, without more, good cause or a compelling reason. Furthermore,

24

documents will not be sealed in their entirety if good cause or compelling reasons justify

25

sealing only discrete portions. In such circumstances, publicly available redacted versions

26

of the relevant documents will be required.

27

///

28

///

- 12 -

Case 2:17-cv-04565-DLR Document 376 Filed 11/03/21 Page 13 of 13

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Motion Regarding

2

Sealed Pleadings (Doc. 374) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties should

3

confer and, if appropriate, may submit a revised stipulation that accounts of the

4

requirements of this order.

5

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2021.

6
7
8
9
10

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 13 -