Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01465/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01465-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Luz Hellman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheldon Weisberg, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1465-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to file under seal (doc. 26), plaintiff's

response (doc. 39), and defendants' reply (doc. 42). We also have before us defendants'

motion to join plaintiff's spouse as a party (doc. 27), plaintiff's response (doc. 38), and

defendants' reply (doc. 41); and plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint

(doc. 36), and defendants' response (doc. 40). Plaintiff did not file a reply to this motion.

Finally, we have defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's notice of supplemental authorities

(doc. 44). 

I

Plaintiff is a former judicial assistant to an Arizona Court of Appeals judge. She filed

this action alleging that she was retaliated against in violation of her civil rights after she

released two confidential court memoranda concerning another court employee’s

discrimination claim. 

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FJM Document 45 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 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

1

Exhibit A is an affidavit by Judge Kessler, with two allegedly confidential

memoranda attached that discuss underlying facts involved in the present action. Exhibit L

is an acknowledgment signed by plaintiff that she had read the court's personnel policies.

Exhibit H is a recorded interview of plaintiff regarding her allegations of discrimination and

retaliation. Exhibit N is a secretly recorded conversation between plaintiff, Judges Weisberg,

Gemmill, and Kessler, involving the underlying facts in this case, as well as facts related to

Pangerl v. Ehrlich, No. CV-06-1464 (D. Ariz. filed June 6, 2006). 

- 2 -

In their motion to file under seal (doc. 26), defendants ask the court to seal four

exhibits attached to their motions for summary judgment.1

 There is a strong presumption in

favor of access to records filed in a judicial proceeding. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears

the burden of “offer[ing] a compelling reason to overcome the presumption in favor of

access.” Id. at 1138. 

Defendants contend that the exhibits are documents prepared by judges in the course

of deliberations on rule or administrative matters, or contain confidential employee

information, and are therefore unavailable to the public pursuant to Rule 123, Ariz. R. Sup.

Ct. While Rule 123 generally establishes a presumption in favor of public access to court

documents, it also recognizes that because of "countervailing interests of confidentiality,

privacy or the best interests of the state[,] public access to some court records may be

restricted or expanded." Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 123(c)(1). Therefore, Rule 123 exempts from

presumptive disclosure certain employee records, pre-decisional documents, and attorney and

judicial work product. Id. at § 123(e)(1)-(11). 

Defendants argue that because the four exhibits are excluded from public disclosure

pursuant to Rule 123, they should be sealed in this court as well. First, it is not at all clear

that public access to the exhibits is precluded by Rule 123. But even if it was, Rule 123 only

provides an administrative mechanism for disclosure of judicial branch records pursuant to

requests by members of the public; it does not purport to address the disclosure of records

in a judicial proceeding. Rule 123(a) acknowledges that the scope of the rule is limited to

a public records request. Rule 123(b) acknowledges that even "closed" or "confidential"

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FJM Document 45 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

records are subject to disclosure when "authorized by law." The sealing of records in federal

court is determined by an analysis under Foltz. 

We have conducted an in camera review of the exhibits and find no compelling reason

to seal these documents. Much of the information is already in the public domain. That the

exhibits relate to employment is insufficient standing alone to justify sealing. This entire

case relates to plaintiff's employment. Broad brush reliance on Rule 123 to seal the entire

case would no doubt violate Foltz. 

We acknowledge that there may indeed be compelling reasons to exclude from

disclosure certain court documents, such as memoranda between and among judges regarding

their views on a case, a proposed rule, or an administrative agenda item of general

applicability. But here we have only a case specific employment dispute. Accordingly, the

defendants’ motion to seal is denied (doc. 26). We note that our denial of the motion to seal

the exhibits in no way addresses the propriety of plaintiff’s disclosure of court documents.

That is a quite separate issue that may well be informed by Rule 123, among other things.

II

In their motion to join plaintiff's husband as a party plaintiff (doc. 27), defendants

assert that joinder is necessary to enable them to collect on a judgment for costs and

attorney's fees against the marital community, if awarded. Under Arizona's community

property law, either spouse may sue or be sued in matters involving his or her separate

property without joinder of the other spouse. A.R.S. § 25-214(A). Here, plaintiff is only

asserting claims for nominal damages, compensatory damages for pain and suffering, and

punitive damages. Claims for personal injury are the separate property of the injured spouse.

Jurek v. Jurek, 124 Ariz. 596, 598, 606 P.2d 812, 814 (1980). Because there is no

community purpose underlying plaintiff's separate property claims, community property is

not liable for attorney's fees and costs incurred in asserting those claims. See American

Express v. Parmeter, 186 Ariz. 652, 654, 925 P.2d 1369, 1371 (Ct. App. 1996) (fees incurred

in defending separate property claim did not benefit the community and thus is a separate

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FJM Document 45 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

obligation). Therefore, we deny defendants' motion to join plaintiff's spouse as a party (doc.

27). 

III

Lastly, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint (doc. 36) in order to include

a claim for constructive discharge. Defendants oppose the amendment on the ground of

futility, asserting that plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies by filing the

constructive discharge claim with the EEOC, or appropriate state agency. Plaintiff does not

respond to this argument.

On January 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC claiming

retaliation for engaging in protected activity. She did not resign until eight months later;

therefore, the EEOC charge did not include a constructive discharge claim. Because plaintiff

did not present a constructive discharge claim in her EEOC complaint, she has failed to

exhaust her administrative remedies. Exhaustion is required as a prerequisite to suit.

Therefore, plaintiff's motion to amend is denied on the basis of futility (doc. 36).

IV

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to seal (doc. 26). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to join plaintiff's

spouse as a party (doc. 27). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (doc.

36). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's

notice of supplemental authorities (doc. 44). 

DATED this 14th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FJM Document 45 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4