Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02236/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02236-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

MD Helicopters Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-19-02236-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendants’1 Motion to File Portions of 

Administrative Record Under Seal (Docs. 35, 60), Defendants’ Motion to File Additional 

Documents to Administrative Record Under Seal (Doc. 72); Defendants’ Motion to File its 

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction 

and Declarations of Linda Diedrich and David Friedman Under Seal (Doc. 40), and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Portions of Reply in Support of Motion for TRO and Preliminary 

Injunction Under Seal (Doc. 56). All of these Motions are unopposed. The Court now rules 

on these Motions. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff MD Helicopters Incorporated (“Plaintiff” or “MDHI”) 

filed this action challenging the U.S. Army’s (“Army”) denial of Plaintiff’s proposal for 

the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competitive Prototype (“FARA CP”). 

 1

 “Defendants” refers to the United States of America, Patrick M. Shanahan, in his 

capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Department of Army, and Mark T. Esper, in his capacity as Secretary of the Army. 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 11
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Doc. 1 at 1–4). Plaintiff alleges that the Army evaluated its proposal in a manner which 

was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law” such 

that the Court should set aside the agency’s actions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and 

order that MDHI’s proposal be advanced for Phase 1 evaluation. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff also 

requests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

enjoining the Army from proceeding with Phase 1 evaluation in the FARA CP Solicitation 

until this lawsuit is resolved. (Docs. 1 at 5; 13 at 9). 

 Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the unredacted version of 

its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), taking 

Plaintiff at its word that each item redacted was a trade secret. (Doc. 14 at 1). Now, 

Defendants seek to file under seal portions of the Certified Administrative Record, their 

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, 

and the supporting Declarations of Linda Diedrich and David Friedman. (See Docs. 35; 40, 

60, 72). Plaintiff also seeks to file its Reply in Support of its Motion for TRO and 

Preliminary Injunction under seal. (Doc. 56). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

589, 597 (1978). This right of access extends to all judicial records except those that have 

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury transcripts 

and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, “the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the 

power of a court to insure that its records” do not “serve as . . . sources of business 

information that might harm the litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 

(quotation omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 

overcoming this presumption by either meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 11
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

record is a dispositive pleading, or the “good cause” standard if the record is a nondispositive pleading. Id. at 1180. This means “the party must articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Id. at 1178–1179 (internal quotations omitted). 

Generalized statements supporting sealing are inadequate; a party must articulate specific 

facts to justify sealing, and must do so with respect to each item sought to be sealed. 

Id. at 1183–84. These compelling reasons must be shown in order to seal judicial records 

attached to a dispositive motion, even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order. Id. at 1179. 

What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. The Court must “balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. If the Court decides to seal certain judicial records 

after considering these interests, “it must base its decision on a compelling reason and 

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.” Id. Generally, “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have 

become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

In the business context, a “trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device 

or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an 

opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Elec. 

Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts 

§ 757, cmt. B (1939)).2

 As “confidentiality alone does not transform business information 

 2

 Arizona defines a “trade secret” as information that both “(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” A.R.S. § 44–401(4). “Only those secrets affording a demonstrable competitive advantage may properly be considered a trade 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 11
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

into a trade secret, a party alleging trade secret protection as a basis for sealing court records 

must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret.” PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland 

Elecs. LLC, 2014 WL 4722326, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quotation omitted). 

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

RECORD UNDER SEAL (DOCS. 35, 60) 

On May 3, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to File Portions of Administrative 

Record Under Seal (Doc. 35). On this same date, Defendants filed an Index of the Certified 

Administrative Record along with items 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of that record. (See Doc. 36). 

Defendants also lodged under seal items 3–10 and 15–26 of the Certified Administrative 

Record. (Docs. 37–39, 62). Defendants contend that public disclosure of items 3–10 and 

15–26 would not only violate the Court’s May 1, 2019 Protective Order, but also violate 

federal statutes, specifically 10 U.S.C. § 130 and 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h). (Docs. 35 at 3; 

60 at 3). Further, Defendants point out that “the source selection information contained in 

this record [] may also be subject to claims of trade secrets protection by the Plaintiff.” 

(Id.). Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court enter an order permitting them to file 

items 3–10 and 15–26 of the Certified Administrative Record under seal. (Id.).3

Defendants state that each page of items 3–10 of the Certified Administrative 

Record (AR000119–2009) contains detailed technical information and data related to a 

military or space application that is protected from public disclosure pursuant to 

10 U.S.C. § 130. (Docs. 35 at 2; 60 at 2–3). Section 130 provides, in relevant part: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 

Defense may withhold from public disclosure any technical 

data with military or space application in the possession of, or 

under the control of, the Department of Defense, if such data 

may not be exported lawfully outside the United States without 

an approval, authorization, or license under the Export 

Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) or the 

 

secret.” Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke, 197 Ariz. 144, 3 P.3d 1064, 1070 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). 

3

 Defendants do not seek to seal items 1–2 and 11–14 of the Certified Administrative 

Record. (Docs. 35 at 3; 60 at 3). 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 11
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.). 

10 U.S.C. § 130(a). The term “technical data with military or space application” used in 

this section means “any blueprints, drawings, plans, instructions, computer software and 

documentation, or other technical information that can be used, or be adapted for use, to 

design, engineer, produce, manufacture, operate, repair, overhaul, or reproduce any 

military or space equipment or technology concerning such equipment.” Id. § 130(c). 

Items 3–10 of the Certified Record are various supplemental information packages 

issued by the US Army Contracting Command–Redstone for the FARA CP Program 

Solicitation on topics including design, aircraft and mission systems, airworthiness 

qualification, security classification, and guidance for estimating cost of the FARA Air 

Vehicle Platform. (Doc. 36-1). These items are marked with a distribution statement which 

notes that distribution is authorized to the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and U.S. DoD 

contractors only because the documents contain “critical technology,” or else contain an 

indication that they are restricted to supplemental information package recipients. 

(Docs. 37-1 at 9; 37-2 at 1; 37-4 at 1; 37-5 at 1; 37-14 at 1; 37-16 at 1; 37-17 at 1). 

As items 3–10 (AR000119–2009) of the certified administrative record appear to 

contain technical data with military application barred from public disclosure pursuant to 

10 U.S.C. § 130, the Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons to seal 

these portions of the Certified Administrative Record. See United States ex rel. Kelly v. 

Serco, Inc., No. 11CV2975 WQH-RBB, 2014 WL 12675246, at *4 

(S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) (granting the defendant’s motion to seal various documents 

designated “For Official Use Only” by the United States Government because “national 

security interests are a compelling reason for filing documents under seal”); McQuilliams 

v. Int’l Auto Logistics, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-124, 2016 WL 4257362, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 

11, 2016) (granting the parties’ joint motions to file under seal where the parties 

“established that sealing these records is necessary to protect Defendant’s proprietary 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 5 of 11
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

information and information that implicates national security interests”).4

Defendants also aver that items 15 through 26 of the Certified Administrative 

Record (AR 002067–002480) contain information protected from disclosure pursuant to 

10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h), which incorporates the Procurement Integrity Act, 

41 U.S.C. § 2102. (Docs. 35 at 2; 60 at 2–3). Section 2371b grants the DoD other 

transaction authority to “carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing 

the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, 

components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of 

Defense . . . .” 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(a). Subsection h of section 2371b states that “[a]n 

agreement entered into under the authority of this section shall be treated as a Federal 

agency procurement for the purposes of chapter 21 of title 41.” Id. § 2371b(h). The 

Procurement Integrity Act of chapter 21 of title 41 prohibits the knowing disclosure of 

“contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information” pertaining to 

awards of Federal agency procurement contracts by a present or former official of the 

Federal Government. 41 U.S.C. § 2102(a).5

After reviewing items 15 through 26, the Court finds that these portions of the 

Administrative Record contain information barred from public disclosure by the 

Procurement Integrity Act. Items 16 through 19, which are various portions of Plaintiff’s 

proposal for the FARA CP, contain “contractor bid or proposal information,” including 

cost or pricing data and various proprietary information about manufacturing processes, 

 4 See also Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Def., No. 09CIV8071BSJFM, 

2012 WL 13075284, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012) (granting the defendant’s request to seal documents where doing so “is necessary to preserve the national security”); United 

States v. Ressam, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1263 (W.D. Wash. 2002) (sealing documents “required to protect ongoing compelling interests of national security”). 

5

 The Procurement Integrity Act defines “contractor bid or proposal information” as non-public “information submitted to a Federal agency as part of, or in connection with, a 

bid or proposal to enter into a Federal agency procurement contract,” such as cost or pricing data, indirect costs and direct labor rates, or various proprietary information about 

manufacturing processes, operations, or techniques. 41 U.S.C. § 2101(2). The same section 

defines “source selection information” as non-public “information prepared for use by a Federal agency to evaluate a bid or proposal to enter into a Federal agency procurement contract,” such as bid prices, proposed costs or prices, source selection plans, technical evaluations of proposals, cost or price evaluations of proposals, and rankings of bids. Id. § 2101(7). 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 6 of 11
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

operations, and techniques. See 41 U.S.C. § 2101(2). Items 15 and 20 through 26 are 

Defendants’ various evaluations of Plaintiff’s proposal and communications with Plaintiff 

as to why its proposal was not selected. These documents constitute “source selection 

information,” as that term is defined by 41 U.S.C. § 2101(7). 

Not only are items 15 through 26 of the Certified Administrative Record barred 

from disclosure under 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h) and 41 U.S.C. § 2102 as “contractor bid or 

proposal information” and “source selection information,” but the Court is concerned that 

public disclosure of these documents would release information likely subject to trade 

secret protection by Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ Motion to File 

Portions of Administrative Record Under Seal (Doc. 35) addressing whether or not these 

documents contain trade secrets. However, given that Plaintiff previously successfully 

moved to seal its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on 

the ground that it contained MDHI’s trade secrets, (Doc. 10 at 1), and that much of the 

information Plaintiff sought to redact can be found within items 15 through 26 of the 

Certified Administrative Record, public disclosure of these documents might harm both 

MDHI’s competitive position and the security of the government agencies that rely on 

MDHI’s technology. 

As items 15–26 (AR 002067–002480) of the certified administrative record contain 

information barred from disclosure under 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h) and likely contain 

protectable trade secrets, the Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons 

to seal these portions of the Certified Administrative Record. See Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179 (“compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might . . . release 

trade secrets”); GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 

2015) (“[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter 

alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 

commercial information.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G)). For these reasons, the 

Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to File Portions of Administrative Record Under Seal 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 7 of 11
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Docs. 35, 60). 

IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER SEAL (DOC. 72) 

 Defendants have also filed a Motion to File Additional Documents to 

Administrative Record Under Seal (Doc. 72). This Motion avers that, since lodging the 

Certified Administrative Record with the Court, Defendants have located four additional 

documents that were considered by the agency when issuing its final decision rejecting 

Plaintiff’s FARA CP proposal. (Id. at 2). Defendants have lodged these four documents, 

items 27–30 of the Certified Administrative Record, under seal at Doc. 74. 

Defendants contend that each page of items 27–30 of the Certified Administrative 

Record (AR002481–002054) contains information protected from disclosure by the 

Court’s May 1, 2019 Protective Order and by 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h), which incorporates 

the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. § 2102. (Doc. 72 at 2). According to Defendants, 

“there is a significant concern to protect against the disclosure of source selection 

information contained in this record which may also be subject to claims of trade secret 

protection by the Plaintiff.” (Id. at 2–3). Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court 

enter an order permitting them to file items 27–30 of the Certified Administrative Record 

under seal. (Id. at 3). 

After reviewing items 27 through 30, the Court finds that these portions of the 

Certified Administrative Record contain information barred from public disclosure by the 

Procurement Integrity Act. Items 27 through 30 include a consensus technical evaluation 

of Plaintiff’s proposal for the FARA CP, as well as various emails regarding Defendants’ 

evaluations of Plaintiff’s proposal. These documents constitute “source selection 

information,” as that term is defined by 41 U.S.C. § 2101(7). Further, for the same reasons 

noted supra, the Court is concerned that these portions of the Certified Administrative 

Record likely contain Plaintiff’s trade secrets. As a result, the Court finds that Defendants 

have shown compelling reasons to seal items 27 through 30 of the Certified Administrative 

Record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; GPNE Corp., 2015 WL 4381244, at *1. 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 8 of 11
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 72). 

V. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR TRO/PI UNDER SEAL (DOC. 40) 

 Defendants also move to seal their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, and the Declarations of Linda Diedrich and 

David Friedman, (Doc. 40), lodging these documents under seal at Doc. 41. Defendants 

contend that its Response (Doc. 41), and the attached Declarations of Linda Diedrich and 

David Friedman (Docs. 41-1–41-2), contain factual material and related argument which 

are not only subject to the Protective Order in this case, but also consist of information 

protected from disclosure under the Procurement Integrity Act. (Doc. 40 at 2 (citing 10 

U.S.C. § 2371b(h); 41 U.S.C. § 2102)). According to Defendants, public disclosure of the 

information contained in these documents would release source selection information in 

violation of the Procurement Integrity Act, and likely release information subject to trade 

secret protection by Plaintiff. (Id. at 2–3). 

 After reviewing Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 41) and the attached Declarations of Linda 

Diedrich and David Friedman (Docs. 41-1–41-2), the Court finds that these documents 

contain information barred from public disclosure by the Procurement Integrity Act, 

including Plaintiff’s bid or proposal information and source selection information. 

See 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101(2), 2101(7). Further, as discussed supra, these documents likely 

contain Plaintiff’s trade secrets. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have 

shown compelling reasons to seal their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction and the Declarations of Linda Diedrich and 

David Friedman. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; GPNE Corp., 2015 WL 4381244, at 

*1. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 40). 

VI. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR TRO/PI UNDER SEAL (DOC. 56) 

 On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File Portions of Reply in Support of 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 9 of 11
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction Under Seal (Doc. 56). With this Motion, 

Plaintiff lodged its proposed Reply at Doc. 57. Plaintiff asks that the Court seal its Reply 

because it contains “factual material and related argument concerning MDHI’s proposal, 

the Army’s overall evaluation of FARA CP proposals, and the Army’s specific evaluation 

of MDHI’s proposal.” (Doc. 56 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that the public disclosure of this 

information would not only reveal its trade secrets, but also would violate the Procurement 

Integrity Act. (Id. (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(h); 41 U.S.C. § 2102)). 

 As Plaintiff points out, its Reply contains similar information to what Defendants 

previously identified in their Motions to Seal as source selection information and Plaintiff’s 

trade secrets subject to the Protective Order. (Doc. 56 at 2). After reviewing Plaintiff’s 

Reply (Doc. 57), the Court agrees that public disclosure of that document would release 

Plaintiff’s trade secrets as well as Plaintiff’s bid or proposal information and source 

selection information in violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. 

See 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101(2), 2101(7); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; GPNE Corp., 2015 WL 

4381244, at *1. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown compelling 

reasons to seal its Reply. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 56). 

VII. CONCLUSION 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 10 of 11
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File Portions of Administrative 

Record Under Seal (Docs. 35, 60) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file 

under seal the documents presently lodged at Docs. 37, 38, 39, and 62. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File Additional 

Documents to Administrative Record Under Seal (Doc. 72) is GRANTED. The Clerk of 

the Court is directed to file under seal the documents presently lodged at Doc. 74. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File its Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction and 

Declarations of Linda Diedrich and David Friedman Under Seal (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the documents presently lodged at 

Doc. 41. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Portions of Reply in 

Support of Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction Under Seal (Doc. 56) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the document presently 

lodged at Doc. 57. 

 Dated this 6th day of June, 2019. 

Case 2:19-cv-02236-JAT Document 81 Filed 06/07/19 Page 11 of 11