Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02267/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02267-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Jesus Lopez Sauceda and Maria Lopez

Bojorquez, husband and wife; Maria

Soledad Alaniz Gonzalez, a single

woman, and Angel Alaniz Gonzalez, a

single man, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2267-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On August 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to file under seal the statement of facts

and exhibits in support of their response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for

summary judgment. Dkt. #81. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs

had made no attempt to satisfy the Ninth Circuit standard for sealing documents and had

failed to specify the documents for which the necessary showing can be made. Dkt. #84.

Plaintiffs have filed a new motion (Dkt. #85), asserting that their lodged statement of

facts (Dkt. #87) should be filed under seal consistent with the Privacy Act Order and

Protective Order (Dkt. ##16, 33). While protecting sensitive law enforcement policies

appears to be a valid ground for sealing documents, Plaintiffs seek to seal the entire statement

of facts and all exhibits attached thereto. See Dkt. #85-1, 86.

The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and with leave to re-file.

The new motion shall specifically identify (by paragraph and/or exhibit number) the portions

Case 2:07-cv-02267-DGC Document 91 Filed 09/04/09 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 -

of the lodged statement of facts (Dkt. ##87) that Plaintiffs wish to file under seal. The Court

will then determine which documents (or portions thereof) should be filed publicly and which

should be filed under seal.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal (Dkt. #85) is denied without

prejudice.

2. Plaintiffs may file a new motion consistent with this order by

September 18, 2009.

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed page limits (Dkt. #85) is denied as moot (see

Dkt. ##88, 89). 

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02267-DGC Document 91 Filed 09/04/09 Page 2 of 2