O.E.O. v. Figueroa

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

9 O.E.O., No. CV-25-02283-PHX-DWL (MTM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Fred Figueroa, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On June 30, 2025, Petitioner O.E.O., who is currently confined in the Eloy Detention Center, filed a Complaint and Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he is a fifteen-year-old unaccompanied minor who is being detained as an adult at the Eloy Detention center and faces imminent expedited removal. (Doc. 1.)

19 On August 15, 2025, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file the administrative records prepared by ICE and ORR without redactions and under seal. (Doc. 40.)

21 Respondents assert that because Petitioner “claims to be a minor,” his name and date of birth must be redacted from the record, but because the records are lengthy—“[w]hile ICE’s administrative record is under 150 pages, ORR’s record is over 4300 pages”— “[t]rying to redact the administrative records for filing on the public docket is not possible given the time constraint.” (Id.) 26 Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that certain information be redacted from most court filings, including minors’ names, which must be replaced with initials, and birthdates (except for the year of birth). However, this redaction requirement “does not apply” to certain filings, including “the record of an administrative or agency proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b). Furthermore, because this is an immigration case, public access to the administrative record (and many other filings on the docket) is somewhat limited, as a member of the public cannot electronically access these filings electronically and must physically visit the courthouse to view them. Nevertheless, because this limitation does not entirely shield the documents from public view the way that sealing would, the Court must consider Respondents’ sealing request.

8 The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to shield judicial records and documents from public inspection must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

20 The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies when the information sought to be sealed is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). “Because the administrative record is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard.” D. G. by & through Goan v. Alpine Union Sch.

25 Dist., 2025 WL 622615, *1 (S.D. Cal. 2025).

26 Every motion to seal must identify the legal standard applicable to the document at issue and explain why the material sought to be sealed meets that standard. LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion or stipulation to file a document under seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under seal.”).

2 Respondents assert only that the inconvenience of redacting a voluminous record justifies sealing the record in its entirety. However, as discussed above, administrative and agency records are exempt from the redaction requirement of Rule 5.2.

5 Furthermore, notwithstanding the exemptions set forth in Rule 5.2, sealing documents because they contain Petitioner’s date of birth would make no sense within the context of this action, where Petitioner’s age is precisely what is at issue. Courts routinely find that where a litigant puts his or her sensitive information at issue, that information does not meet the sealing standard. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Hasbro Inc., 2016 WL 9137526, *3 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“Hasbro put these documents at issue in the litigation and thus fails to [] make a particularized showing of compelling reason[s] to file these exhibits under seal.”); B.F. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 4597492, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“By bringing this lawsuit against Defendants, [Plaintiffs] have put [information sought to be sealed] directly at issue, and cannot reasonably expect filings in this case not to include details about [that information].”). So too, Petitioner’s name—while not itself a matter of dispute—is part of his basic identity, and to the extent the documents in the administrative record bear on the dispute regarding his age, they can only do so to the extent they can be linked to him, generally by including his name.

19 Furthermore, Respondents—who maintain that Petitioner is not a minor—have no interest in sealing the documents.

21 On the other hand, Petitioner has been proceeding anonymously thus far in this action. Although perhaps the chances are slim that a member of the public will take the time to visit the courthouse to inspect the filings in this case that are protected from remote access by Rule 5.2(c), such an event is possible and would undermine Petitioner’s anonymity. Before Petitioner’s anonymity is compromised by unsealed filing of the administrative record in unredacted form, Petitioner should have the opportunity to be heard regarding whether the Advanced Textile factors favor anonymity. See, e.g., Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042-46 (9th Cir. 2010) □□ (recognizing “the paramount importance of open courts” and affirming district court 2|| decision that minors may not proceed anonymously where “the public interest weighs || against anonymity” and the other factors did not tip the balance).

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to seal (Doc. 40) is denied without 6|| prejudice.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by September 3, 2025, Petitioner shall file || either (1) a motion for leave to continue to proceed anonymously and a motion to seal the || administrative record or (2) a notice of non-opposition to filing an unsealed and unredacted || administrative record and non-opposition to proceeding under Petitioner’s name.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative record shall remain lodged || under seal in the meantime. This will not affect the briefing schedule and will not delay 13} resolution of this action.

14 Dated this 19th day of August, 2025.

16 Lm ee” 17 f t _o—— Dominic W, Lanza 18 United States District Judge -4-