BLADES v. GITT

Full title: Julie Blades, a single woman; Kristi Everett, a single woman; Jennifer…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Dec 28, 2005

No. CV-05-0799-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Dec. 28, 2005)

Opinion

No. CV-05-0799-PHX-JAT.

December 28, 2005

ORDER

JAMES TEILBORG, District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Seal this entire case (Doc. #77). Defendants represent that Plaintiffs will not oppose the Motion.

The Court does not find cause to seal this entire case. In other words, most cases involve allegations that a particular party would prefer not be made public; however, that cannot be the basis for sealing entire case files. See Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9^th Cir. 2003) ("A litigant who might be embarrassed, incriminated, or exposed to litigation through dissemination of materials is not, without more, entitled to the court's protection. . . ." (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Therefore, the motion will be denied.

Such denial is without prejudice to the parties filing a stipulation (if they can reach one) that a particular filing (referenced by document number) be sealed if the parties case show that the particular filing sought to be sealed contains allegations that warrant sealing that particular document. In filing any such stipulation, the parties shall apply the factors required by the Court of Appeals. Id. at 1135 ("In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing strong presumption in context of civil trial); accord United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir. 1982) (same in context of criminal trial); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 823 (3d Cir. 1981) (same). The common law right of access, however, is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so. San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. In making the determination, courts should consider all relevant factors, including: the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. . . . After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.").

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (Doc. #77) is denied.