United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2019

Wheatcroft v. Glendale, City of

Wheatcroft v. Glendale, City of
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided December 23, 2019
Wheatcroft v. Glendale, City of

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Johnny Wheatcroft, et al., No. CV-18-02347-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. City of Glendale, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is a motion to seal Defendants’ unopposed motion to authorize release of Plaintiffs’ probation files. (Doc. 80.) The only justification provided for sealing is that the motion “contains confidential identifying information for Plaintiffs Johnny Wheatcroft and Anya Chapman.” (Id. at 1.)

19 Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). A party seeking to file a motion under seal must “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 24 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see also LRCiv 5.6 (requiring “a clear statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under seal”).

26 The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ “confidential identifying information” need not be made part of the public record. However, that result can be accomplished by redacting those specific portions of the motion and accompanying exhibits, rather than sealing the || entire motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (permitting redaction when the filing contains an 2|| “individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the || name of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number”). Defendants 4|| provide no other reason to seal the motion. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to seal (Doc. 80) is denied.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the lodged Unopposed Motion for Order to 7\| Authorize Release of Johnny Wheatcroft’s and Anya Chapman’s Probation Files to || Defendants City of Glendale, Matt Schneider, Mark Lindsey, and Michael Fernandez (Doc.

9|| 81) is stricken from the record.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file the Unopposed Motion || for Order to Authorize Release of Johnny Wheatcroft’s and Anya Chapman’s Probation 12|| Files to Defendants City of Glendale, Matt Schneider, Mark Lindsey, and Michael || Fernandez by January 3, 2019. Defendants may redact personal identifying information, □□ as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), but shall not file the entire motion || under seal.

16 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Order shall not be sealed.

17 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2019.

Michael T. Liburdi 21 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.