Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01837/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01837-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

Gregory Martinez, Sr., etc.; et al,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Avondale, etc; et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1837-PHX-LOA

ORDER

After review of Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Minors’ Settlement, the Court will

deny Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the Petition. 

While it may be appropriate to file under seal counsel’s fee agreement due to the

confidential nature of the relationship and privilege between Plaintiffs and their counsel,

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Minors’ Settlement fails to establish

compelling reasons to warrant sealing the entire motion and all attachments. See Pintos v.

Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Those who seek to maintain the

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of

showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule

26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.”); In Re Copley

Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022 (2008); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Because approval of the minor Plaintiffs’ settlement Petition is

dispositive, the compelling reasons standard applies to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. See Hagan

v. California Forensic Medical Group, 2012 WL 4460767 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012); M.P.

Case 2:12-cv-01837-LOA Document 160 Filed 02/28/14 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 -

ex rel. Provins v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., 2012 WL 1574801, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2012)

(holding that, because approval of minor’s settlement is dispositive, the compelling reasons

standard applies to motion to seal) (citing Taylor v. AFS Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 2079750, at

*2 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2010) (“Because approval of the settlement agreement will be

dispositive of the FLSA claim, the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana

applies to that agreement.”); Franklin v. Allstate Corp., 2008 WL 2661943 (N.D. Cal. June

25, 2008); White v. Sabatino, 2007 WL 2750604 (D. Haw. Sept. 17, 2007). 

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal cites no authority to seal the petition approving the minors’

settlement and provides no discussion of the Ninth Circuit’s compelling reasons standard.

In fact, as the foregoing cases reflect, it is well-established throughout the Ninth Circuit that

district courts routinely deny requests to seal petitions to approve minors’ settlements.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Petition for Approval of

Settlement of Minors’ Claims under Seal, doc. 158, is DENIED. Plaintiffs must file their

Petition to Approve Minors’ Settlement as a public document on or before Monday, March

3, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. or the Petition to Approve Minors’ Settlement may be denied without

prejudice.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01837-LOA Document 160 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 2