Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00090/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

Republic of Kazakhstan,

Petitioner,

v. 

William Scott Lawler,

Respondent.

No. MC-19-00035-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Renewed Motion for 

Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 8) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 10). 

For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that 

a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of 

access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To 

do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court 

must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who 

seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 4
- 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

omitted). The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their 

attachments where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The Republic of Kazakhstan initiated this case by filing an application under 28 

U.S.C. § 1782 for a subpoena to compel an Arizona resident to testify in, and produce 

certain evidence concerning, a pending international investor-state arbitration. (Doc. 1.) 

That application was heavily redacted. (Id.) An unredacted application and accompanying 

exhibits were lodged. (Doc. 3.)

The Court denied the Republic of Kazakhstan’s first motion to seal (Doc. 4), noting 

that the short motion did not attempt to “articulate compelling reasons supported by 

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 

favoring disclosure . . . .” (Doc. 5 at 2; see also LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion or stipulation 

to file a document under seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority 

justifying the filing of the document under seal . . . .”).) 

On October 22, 2019, the Republic of Kazakhstan filed a redacted amended 

application. (Doc. 7.)1 In support of the redacted amended application, the Republic of 

Kazakhstan also filed several exhibits, some of which contain redactions2and some of 

which don’t.

3

 An unredacted amended application was lodged (Doc. 9-1), and unredacted 

versions of the redacted exhibits were likewise lodged.4 The Republic of Kazakhstan also 

 

1 The amended application supersedes the original application that was filed at Doc. 

1. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard 

Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). 

2 The exhibits containing redactions are Doc. 7-1 (memorandum of law in support of 

the application), Doc. 7-5 (arbitration request), Doc. 7-6 (arbitration brief on jurisdiction), 

Doc. 7-7 (arbitration request for production of documents), and Doc. 7-9 (letter from 

arbitration tribunal).

3 The exhibits not containing any redactions are Doc. 7-2 (proposed subpoena), Doc. 

7-3 (proposed order), Doc. 7-4 (Duffy declaration), and Doc. 7-8 (arbitration procedural 

order).

4 The unredacted version of the memorandum of law in support of the application

(Doc. 7-1) is lodged at Doc. 9-2, the arbitration request (Doc. 7-5) at Doc. 9-3, the 

arbitration brief on jurisdiction (Doc. 7-6) at Doc. 9-4, the arbitration request for production 

of documents (Doc. 7-7) at Doc. 9-5, and the letter from arbitration tribunal (Doc. 7-9) at 

Doc. 9-6.

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 2 of 4
- 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

filed a second motion to seal (Doc. 8), and this time the motion is supported by a 

memorandum of law articulating the reasons that justify sealing. (Doc. 10.) 

The Court has carefully reviewed the redactions in the amended application (Doc. 

7) and has determined that the information redacted from this document meets the 

Kamakana standard—the Republic of Kazakhstan’s interest in maintaining confidentiality 

outweighs the public policy favoring disclosure, especially considering that the redaction 

of the particular information at issue here will not interfere with the public’s ability to 

evaluate and understand these proceedings. The Court will therefore allow the unredacted 

amended application (Doc. 9-1) to be filed under seal.

As for the exhibits to the amended application, the Court concludes that the 

redactions appearing in Doc. 7-1 (memorandum of law in support of the application), Doc. 

7-5 (arbitration request), Doc. 7-6 (arbitration brief on jurisdiction), and Doc. 7-7 

(arbitration request for production of documents) meet the Kamakana standard for the same 

reasons. Thus, the Court will allow the unredacted versions of these documents—Doc. 9-

2 (memorandum of law in support of the application), Doc. 9-3 (arbitration request), Doc. 

9-4 (arbitration brief on jurisdiction), and Doc. 9-5 (arbitration request for production of 

documents)—to be filed under seal.

In contrast, the redactions appearing in Doc. 7-7 (arbitration request for production 

of documents) do not meet the Kamakana standard. The Court is not convinced that the 

information subject to the redaction request is sensitive or that its disclosure would result 

in any harm. Accordingly, the Court will not agree to seal the unredacted version of this 

document (Doc. 9-6).

The Republic of Kazakhstan also lodged one additional document as part of its 

sealing request. This document, which appears at Doc. 9, appears to be identical to the 

memorandum that was publicly filed at Doc. 10 (which doesn’t contain any redactions). 

The Republic of Kazakhstan has therefore failed to establish, under Kamakana, why this 

particular document needs to be filed under seal. 

...

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Renewed Motion for Leave 

to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 8) is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk 

of Court shall filed under seal the unredacted application (Doc. 9-1) and the exhibits at

Doc. 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, and 9-5. In contrast, the documents lodged at Doc. 9 and 9-6 will not 

be filed. 

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2019.

Case 2:20-cv-00090-DWL Document 11 Filed 10/24/19 Page 4 of 4