Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00799/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00799-0/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

Julie Blades, a single woman; Kristi

Everett, a single woman; Jennifer Langley,

a single woman; Megan Lynch, a single

woman; Michele Smith, a married woman,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Steven Gitt, and Stacy Gitt, husband and

wife; Steven M. Gitt, M.D., P.C., an

Arizona Professional Corporation doing

business as North Valley Plastic Surgery;

ADP TotalSource II, INC., an Arizona

corporation; Does I-X; Corporation A-Z, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0799-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

(9th 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-00799-JAT Document 78 Filed 12/28/05 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 -

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.

DATED this 28th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-JAT Document 78 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 2