Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02153/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Vickey Sarantis, a single woman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ADP, Inc., a foreign corporation, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2153-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed motions for permission to file under seal her statements of facts in

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. ##94, 96. The Court will

deny the motions.

Plaintiff seeks to file her entire statements of facts under seal pursuant to the Court’s

confidentiality order dated February 26, 2007. Dkt. #24. While that order permits the parties

to designate, in good faith, certain documents as confidential, it does not specifically address

the issue of filing documents with the Court under seal. See id.

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. “First, a ‘compelling

reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 504 F.3d

792, 801 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th

Cir. 2003)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 98 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana,

447 F.3d at 1178) (alteration and internal citations omitted).

The second standard applies to discovery materials. “‘Private materials unearthed

during discovery’ are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1180) (alteration omitted). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure applies to this category of documents. See id.; San Jose Mercury

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). This standard also applies

to documents attached to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

“‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Phillips v. G.M.

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); see Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802.

Documents attached to dispositive motions are governed by the compelling reasons

standard. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. This

standard applies because the resolution of a dispute on the merits “is at the heart of the

interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant

public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a compelling reason to seal her entire statements of

facts. The Court will therefore deny the motions to seal. Plaintiff may seek to file individual

documents under seal if Plaintiff can meet the compelling reasons standard with respect to

each individual document.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for permission to seal and file documents

(Dkt. ##94, 96) are denied.

DATED this 11th day of February, 2008.

 

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 98 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2