Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00366/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

Richard Walker, a citizen of the state of

Arizona, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert Locke, a citizen of the State of

Arizona; Lisa Hechendorn, Vollmer

Locke, a citizen of the State of Arizona, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-366-PHX-JAT

ORDER (UNDER SEAL)

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the Complaint citing Kamakana

v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), Plaintiff argues that he

has shown "compelling reasons" to keep this entire file under seal. The Court disagrees.

Kamakana begins with a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Thus, the Kamakana court recognized only very limited

situations where documents could be sealed. Specifically, the Court recognized that a

particular document might be sealed if it contained a trade secret. Id. The Court also

recognized preventing the Court record from being used to gratify private spite, promote

public scandal, or circulate libelous statements as a valid basis for sealing. Id. Thus,

generally, the Court may seal documents when the, "court files might have become a vehicle

for improper purposes." Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Case 2:07-cv-00366-JAT Document 2 Filed 03/27/07 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 -

In this case, Plaintiff states "the threat of public scandal or injury to the reputation of

innocent parties is great." Motion at 3. Public scandal and injury to reputation are not bases

for sealing. 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)). 

This analysis is particularly true given that it appears Plaintiff is trying to protect his

own reputation (because presumably he is not alleging the defendants are the "innocent"

parties). Plaintiff chose to file litigation. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, litigation is public. Id.

at 1135; see also 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)).

Thus, the Court having found that Plaintiff has failed to show that this case should be

sealed,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (Doc. #1) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall NOT file the lodged

proposed complaint (the Clerk of the Court shall mail the lodged proposed complaint back

to Plaintiff's counsel).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an unsealed complaint within

10 business days of this Order.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00366-JAT Document 2 Filed 03/27/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an unsealed complaint

within 10 business days of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall, without further notice,

close this case.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

Copies to Counsel for Plaintiff Only.

Case 2:07-cv-00366-JAT Document 2 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3