Bruer v. Phillips Law Group PC

Filing 6

ORDER denying 1 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff's Complaint and/or Exhibits A-BB (Doc. 1 ). Plaintiff is directed to file the Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by July 16, 2018. FURTHE R ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal this matter and Docs. 3 , 4 , 5 . FURTHER ORDERED directing to Clerk of Court to dismiss this action, without further Order of the Court, if Plaintiff fails to file the Complaint by July 16, 2018. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/26/18. (MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jane Joyce Bruer,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01843-PHX-JJT

Phillips Law Group PC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
At issue is Plaintiff Jane Joyce Bruer’s ex parte Motion for Leave to File Under

15
16

Seal Plaintiff’s Complaint and/or Complaint Exhibits A-BB (Doc 1, Mot.).

17

In the Ninth Circuit, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to

18

court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.

19

2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

20

2003)). “In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial

21

record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access

22

and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

23

F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a document is “more than tangentially related

24

to the merits” of a case, the party seeking to seal the document must demonstrate

25

“compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

26

1103.

27

Undoubtedly, the Complaint—and those exhibits included with the Complaint—

28

are “more than tangentially related to the merits” of this matter. Thus, Plaintiff must

1

demonstrate “compelling reasons” to justify keeping the documents under seal. In the

2

Motion, Plaintiff argues that such reasons exist because “the Complaint and Exhibits

3

disclose private information regarding Plaintiff and Defendants” and that they “involve

4

highly sensitive matters concerning the Defendants and public disclosure of the

5

information would potentially be prejudicial to the Defendants as well as embarrassing.”

6

(Mot. at 2.) Neither is a compelling reason justifying sealing the Complaint and its

7

attachments. See O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan.

8

27, 2015) (finding that the possibility of embarrassment insufficient to justify sealing of

9

court records). However, should Plaintiff choose to file the Complaint, they shall comply

10

with the provisions contained within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), which

11

restricts the filing of certain personal information.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

13

Under Seal Plaintiff’s Complaint and/or Exhibits A-BB (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is directed to

14

file the Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by July 16,

15

2018.

16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal this matter
and Docs. 3, 4, 5.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing to Clerk of Court to dismiss this action,

19

without further Order of the Court, if Plaintiff fails to file the Complaint by July 16,

20

2018.

21

Dated this 26th day of June, 2018.

22
23
24

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-