Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-21/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

JAVIER TORRES, ALMA SANTIAGO

and LIA RIVADENEYRA, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

TERRY GODDARD, Attorney General of

the State of Arizona, in his individual and

official capacities, and CAMERON

(“KIP”) HOLMES, in his individual

capacity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit D to

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Filing to Correct Error in Defense Testimony at the

February 25, 2009 Class Certification Hearing (Doc. 167). On June 17, 2008, the Court

entered the parties’ Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order (Doc. 122). The exhibit

proposed to be filed under seal contains sensitive information that is protected from

disclosure under this Protective Order. 

When a party files a non-dispositive motion, the Ninth Circuit has held that the

presumption of public right of access is subject to a “good cause” exception for the filing

of discovery documents subject to a protective order. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In making the decision whether to seal a

record, the district could 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.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 169 Filed 04/10/09 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 -

EEOC v. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)). “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.” 

Id.

Defendants have specified the exhibit they desire to file under seal, Exhibit D, as

part of their response to Plaintiffs’ Filing to Correct Error in Defense Testimony. Exhibit

D consists of electronic spreadsheets containing the contact information of Western

Union customers who sent funds by money transfer. According to the Protective Order, 

“Western Union may designate as ‘Confidential,’ documents or portions of

documents which reveal either (a) the names or other personal or contact

information regarding Western Union customers or persons to whom they sent

or attempted to send funds by money transfer . . .” 

Any document or pleading containing Confidential Information filed with

the Court in this action shall be filed under seal in accordance with the

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

governing the filing of documents under seal.

(Doc. 122) Exhibit D falls within the category of information protected by the Protective

Order and Defendants have complied with the Local Rules governing the filing of

documents under seal. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to file this exhibit under

seal.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit

D to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Filing to Correct Error in Defense Testimony at

the February 25, 2009 Class Certification Hearing (Doc. 167) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit D, lodged with the court as Document

168, shall be filed under seal.

DATED this 9th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 169 Filed 04/10/09 Page 2 of 2