Brown v. Glendale, City of et al

Filing 90

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' second motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 86 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the lodged unredacted motion for summary judgment (Doc. 87 ) and Exhibit 7 thereto (Doc. 87 -8). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file in the public record a redacted version of their motion for summary judgment, together with all of the exhibits other than Exhibit 7. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/6/20. (SLQ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Antonio Brown,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01267-PHX-DWL

City of Glendale, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ second motion for leave to file under seal
(Doc. 86). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

17

On December 23, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file their entire

18

summary judgment motion and all of the exhibits thereto under seal. (Doc. 80.) On

19

December 26, 2019, the Court denied that motion without prejudice, noting that

20

Defendants had failed to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

21

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

22

disclosure,” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

23

2006), as is required for all filed motions and their attachments where the motion is

24

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler

25

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). (Doc. 85 at 2.) The Court

26

allowed Defendants to file a new motion to seal and specified that “[t]o the extent that

27

only portions of certain documents might satisfy the Kamakana standard, such that

28

Defendants wish to propose redactions, Defendants shall lodge under seal unredacted

1

versions in which the text which Defendants wish to redact is highlighted to facilitate the

2

Court’s review.” (Id.)

3

On January 3, 2020, Defendants filed a new motion seeking leave to file under

4

seal their unredacted motion for summary judgment and only one exhibit thereto—

5

Exhibit 7, which is a transcript of the grand jury testimony offered by Officer Lawrence

6

Gonzalez on April 14, 2014. Moreover, the unredacted motion for summary judgment,

7

which is lodged at Doc. 87, contains only nine lines of highlighted proposed redactions,

8

consisting of quotations from Officer Gonzalez’s grand jury testimony. The Court finds

9

that compelling reasons to seal outweigh the public right of access.

10

As the Court

previously ruled, the grand jury transcript must be kept confidential. (Doc. 34 at 10-11.)

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ second motion for leave to file under seal

13

(Doc. 86) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the lodged unredacted

14

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 87) and Exhibit 7 thereto (Doc. 87-8).

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file in the public record a

16

redacted version of their motion for summary judgment, together with all of the exhibits

17

other than Exhibit 7.

18

Dated this 6th day of January, 2020.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-