Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Sandra Dowling and Dennis Dowling,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,

husband and wife; Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors; Maricopa County, a

Municipal entity; John Does I-X; Jane

Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and

White Partnerships I-V, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-01401-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are: (1) the Maricopa County Defendants’ Motion to Seal

Exhibits 8 and 9 to the Board Defendants Statement of Facts in Support of their Second

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 233) and (2) the Maricopa County Defendants’

Motion to Seal Exhibits 2, 6, and 16 to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing Exhibits to Omnibus

Statement of Facts (Doc. 234). 

In both Motions to Seal, the Maricopa County Defendants move to seal by relying on

this Court’s Order that the depositions of the supervisors be taken under seal and that the

minutes be produced under seal. Based upon its reading of these Motions to Seal, the Court

has determined that the Maricopa County Defendants are operating under the

misapprehension that the Court has already granted them leave to seal exhibits attached to

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 242 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

dispositive motions. This is not the case. The Court ordered that the depositions be taken

under seal, but has not given the Maricopa County Defendants leave to seal those depositions

when attached to any dispositive or non-dispositive motion. 

The Maricopa County Defendants seem to have ignored the portion of this Court’s

Order of October 12, 2011 (Doc. 231) that directed them to file motions to seal pursuant to

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). In Kamakana,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clearly stated that “automatic sealing” is inappropriate.

Id. at 1179 (parties moving to seal must show compelling reasons to seal “even if the

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.”).

However, because the Court does not believe the Maricopa County Defendants acted

in bad faith, the Court will grant the Maricopa County Defendants leave to supplement their

motions to seal. In their supplement, the Maricopa County Defendants must provide the

Court with compelling reasons why the information they seek to have sealed should be sealed

in accordance with Kamakana. Further, the Maricopa County Defendants should keep in

mind that they must provide compelling reasons to seal each portion of the exhibits they are

seeking to seal and specifically link those portions to the compelling reasons asserted. See

id. at 1184 (“Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further

elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.”). This

may require the Maricopa County Defendants to redact the documents instead of relying on

the Court to seal a whole exhibit when a compelling reason may only apply to a portion of

the exhibit. 

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Maricopa County Defendants’Motion to Seal Exhibits

8 and 9 to the Maricopa County Defendants Statement of Facts in Support of their Second

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 233).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Maricopa County Defendants’ Motion

to Seal Exhibits 2, 6 and 16 to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing Exhibits to Omnibus Statement of

Facts (Doc. 234). However, the Clerk of the Court shall not strike or unseal any documents

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 242 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

relating to these motions at this time because they will be subject to the supplemental motion

to seal discussed below. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Maricopa County Defendants shall

supplement their motions to seal (Doc. 233 and Doc. 234) within 10 days of the date of this

Order. If the Maricopa County Defendants do not supplement their motions to seal or if,

after reading the supplemental filing, the Court does not find compelling reasons to grant the

motions to seal, the Court will strike the lodged documents without granting the parties any

further opportunity to move to seal.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 242 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 3