Wendy D Sholes v. Thomas Kelley, et al.

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

9 Wendy D Sholes, No. CV-15-00211-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Thomas Kelley, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This case was initially filed by Plaintiff Wendy D. Sholes (“Plaintiff”) on February 6, 2015. (See Doc. 1). The case was, ultimately dismissed, on April 1, 2015, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. 12). Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Seal Case. (Doc. 15). In her Motion, Plaintiff states: 19 [Plaintiff is] requesting that this civil case that I filed years ago be completely sealed….This case was in regards to my daughter’s death and is very 20 personal[.]

21 (Id. at 1).

22 It is long established that the public has a “general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). For this reason, the party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To meet this burden, the moving party must supply the court with “compelling reasons supported by factual findings.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Mere allegations of confidentiality, “without any further elaboration or any specific linkage [to] the 2|| documents,” do not satisfy this burden. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Additionally, || potential risk of “embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal [the] records.” Jd. at 1179.

5 While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's difficult situation, nothing in this case’s || brief record mentions her daughter’s death. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint concerns 7\| “police misconduct” that occurred in 2003 but does not make a single reference to her || daughter’s death or her daughter in general. (/d. at 1-2). Moreover, Complaint is devoid 9|| of any personal information that might create a privacy risk for Plaintiff (see id.) and || Plaintiff fails to articulate any other compelling reason for sealing these proceedings. || Therefore, the presumption in favor of public access has not been overcome.

12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Case (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

14 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.

16 fe SZ V7 norable' Diang/4. Hurfetewa 18 United States District Fudge _2-