Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00090/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00090-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

Republic of Kazakhstan,

Petitioner,

v. 

William Scott Lawler,

Respondent.

No. MC-19-00035-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Republic of Kazakhstan’s (“Kazakhstan”) motion 

to seal. (Doc. 26.) For the following reasons, that motion will be granted in part and denied 

in part.

On October 8, 2019, Kazakhstan initiated this action by filing an application under 

28 U.S.C. § 1782 for a subpoena to compel William Scott Lawler to testify in, and produce 

certain evidence concerning, a pending international investor-state arbitration. (Doc. 1.) 

The Court granted a renewed motion to seal on October 23, 2019. (Doc. 11.) 

On October 28, 2019, the Court granted Kazakhstan’s § 1782 application. (Doc. 

16.) Kazakhstan served the subpoena on Lawler two days later. (Doc. 18.)

On November 22, 2019, Lawler filed a redacted motion to quash the subpoena (Doc. 

19) and simultaneously filed a motion to file under seal an unredacted version of the motion 

and its attached exhibits (Doc. 20).1 

 

1 The Court granted in part and denied in part Lawler’s motion to seal. (Doc. 27.) 

Lawler subsequently filed a revised, redacted motion to quash in compliance with that 

order. (Doc. 29.)

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 30 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 4
- 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

On December 9, 2019, Kazakhstan filed a redacted response to Lawler’s motion to 

quash (Doc. 24) and simultaneously filed a motion to seal an unredacted version of that 

response and its attached exhibits (Doc. 26).

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). To 

do so, 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 1178-79 (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). The 

“stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their attachments 

where the motion 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).

As an initial matter, Kazakhstan has complied with LRCiv 5.6(b)’s procedural 

requirement of “set[ting] forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority justifying 

the filing of the document under seal.” (Doc. 26.) The publicly-filed declaration of 

Kazakhstan’s counsel contains no redactions (Doc. 24-1) but the publicly-filed response to 

the motion to quash and supporting exhibits both contain significant redactions (Docs. 24, 

24-2, and 24-3).

The Court has carefully reviewed the response to the motion to quash (Doc. 24) and 

has determined that nearly all the redactions are appropriate. The redactions primarily 

relate to arguments made before the tribunal, findings of the tribunal, and communications 

between Lawler and his counsel. In some cases, the redactions are so minor that they do 

not interfere with public understanding. These redactions meet the Kamakana standard 

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 30 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 4
- 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

because the interest in maintaining confidentiality of both Kazakhstan and Big Sky, the 

confidentiality order by the tribunal, and the fact these redactions do not interfere with the 

public’s ability to evaluate and understand these proceedings collectively tend to outweigh 

the public policy favoring disclosure. However, the first redaction on page six of the 

response (quoting from Lawler’s motion to quash) does not meet the Kamakana standard: 

this quotation is taken from the publicly available portion of Lawler’s motion filed in this 

Court (Doc. 19 at 10, lines 7-8), and there’s no reason to hide something that’s already in 

plain view. Additionally, the formatting of footnotes seven, ten, and twelve as uploaded 

to the Electronic Case Filing system make it impossible for the Court to assess what has 

been redacted. Given the strong presumption in favor of disclosure, the Court cannot 

presume the redactions are appropriate.

As for the exhibits, the Court finds that the redactions appearing in Doc. 24-2 (letter 

from Big Sky’s counsel to the tribunal) and Doc. 24-3 (another letter from Big Sky’s 

counsel to the tribunal) meet the Kamakana standard. Neither of these documents is 

publicly available and both are subject to the tribunal’s ongoing confidentiality order. 

(Doc. 26 at 3-4.) Further, the interest in maintaining confidentiality of both Kazakhstan 

and Big Sky and the fact these redactions do not interfere with the public’s ability to

evaluate and understand these proceedings collectively outweigh the public interest in 

disclosure. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Kazakhstan’s motion for leave to file 

documents under seal (Doc. 26) is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of 

Court shall file under seal the exhibits at Docs. 25-1 and 25-2 (these are the unredacted 

versions of the documents appearing at Docs. 24-2 and 24-3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kazakhstan’s unredacted response to the 

motion to quash (Doc. 25) will not be filed at this time. Instead, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), 

Kazakhstan may resubmit a new version of the redacted response to the motion to quash 

(Doc. 24) that omits any redaction on page six, line five, and clarifies the scope of redaction 

in footnotes seven, ten, and twelve. When such a new version is resubmitted, the Court 

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 30 Filed 12/13/19 Page 3 of 4
- 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

will review the redaction in footnotes seven, ten, and twelve to determine whether it meets 

the Kamakana standard. If so, the Court will then, by separate order, instruct the Clerk of 

Court to file the unredacted response to the motion to quash (Doc. 25) under seal.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2019.

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 30 Filed 12/13/19 Page 4 of 4