Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00799/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00799-1/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 Stacey 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., and Arizona

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

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0799-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Seal or Redact Portions of

Case File (Doc. # 82). Defendants represent that Plaintiffs will not stipulate to the request

nor oppose this Motion.

The Court does not find cause to seal or redact portions of the case file. The

Ninth Circuit recognizes that the federal common law right of access to public records and

documents in a civil trial is not limited to post-judgment documents. San Jose Mercury

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–Northern Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court starts with a strong presumption in favor of access both before and after judgment. Id.;

Case 2:05-cv-00799-JAT Document 85 Filed 03/20/06 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

1

For example, Defendants claim that the “graphic and scandalous” allegations may be

used by anyone seeking to libel Defendant or destroy his practice. He also alleges that

potential patients may be driven away from his practice if they access this information on the

internet.

- 2 -

see Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Although the presumption

in favor of access is strong, the federal common law right may be overcome by sufficiently

compelling countervailing interests. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1102. In

making this decision, the Court must weigh “the public interest in understanding the judicial

process” against “whether disclosure of the document would result in improper use of the

material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Hagestad,

49 F.3d at 1434. 

Defendants argue that dissemination of the allegations in various documents filed

before this Court would result in “fodder for gossip”and damage to Defendants’ business.1

Injury to a company’s public image alone, however, is not enough “to rebut the presumption

of access.” Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 663

(3d Cir. 1991) (suggesting a need for specific evidence of harm). Although a litigant may

be embarrassed by disclosure of the material or subjected to litigation as a result, the party

is not entitled to the protection of the Court unless it provides an articulable factual basis

showing a compelling reason for sealing the document. See Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d

1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may not grant protection solely “on the basis of

unsupported hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. Furthermore, when

courts have afforded protection in other cases, such protection was to third parties rather than

litigants to the suit. See Westinghouse, 949 F.2d at 662 (distinguishing facts in that case from

facts of In re The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir.

1985)).

Although the Court recognizes the potential for some embarrassment to

Defendants through the dissemination of allegations contained in documents filed before this

Court, it finds Defendants’ evidence that the materials will be used for improper purposes

Case 2:05-cv-00799-JAT Document 85 Filed 03/20/06 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

2

 Specifically, Defendants seek to seal or redact from the case files many of the more

graphic and explicit allegations of sexual harassment that gave rise to the present suit.

Plaintiffs alleged both verbal and physical harassment on numerous occasions.

In support of their belief that the allegations will be used improperly, Defendants

point: 1) to the fact that Defendants have been questioned by insurance and healthcare

companies regarding the suit; and, 2) to testimony from this case establishing that the

allegations and knowledge of the sexual harassment suit were already in circulation in the

public domain. 

- 3 -

to be insufficient to create a compelling reason for the Court to override the presumption in

favor of access to public records.2

 The Court finds that the need to promote public

confidence and respect in the judicial system must prevail over Defendants’ claim of

potential harm to the business based on the evidence presented in this case.

The Court also does not find redaction of the requested portions to be appropriate.

In addition to the aforementioned reasons, if the Court were to redact the requested portions

of the case file, the remaining documents would cease to be meaningful. In Foltz, the Ninth

Circuit instructed the district court on remand to redact certain identifying information of

third parties from medical and personnel records and to remove the seal from the most of the

other records. 331 F.3d at 1138. There, the redacted information was minimal in size, not

meaningful to the suit, and related to third parties. Id. at 1136-38. Here the information is

substantial in size, extremely relevant to the suit, and related directly to both parties to the

litigation. Defendants’ request to redact portions of the case file will be denied.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS SO ORDERED that the Motion to Seal or Redact Portions of Case File

(Doc. # 84) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (Doc. #84) is unsealed

and this Order shall not be sealed.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-JAT Document 85 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3