Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08105/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08105-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 

Ronald Cooke and Jinjer Cooke, husband 

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

The State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas C. 

Horne, the Attorney General; and the Civil 

Rights Division of the Arizona Department 

of Law, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v. 

Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of 

Hildale, Utah, Hildale-Colorado City 

Utilities (Hildale-Colorado City Power, 

Water, Sewer and Gas Department and 

Twin City Water Authority); Twin City 

Power, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 10-08105-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Seal Privileged Motion in 

Limine Exhibits (Doc. 347). The Court now rules on the Motion. 

 Defendants seek to seal documents lodged as exhibits to four motions in limine 

filed by Defendants; specifically, (1) exhibits 3-6 (currently lodged at Doc. 349) to 

Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Exhibits to Robert Foster’s Deposition (Doc. 343); (2) 

Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 427 Filed 06/20/13 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

exhibits A and B (currently lodged at Doc. 352) to the Hildale Defendants’ Motion in 

Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Certain Letters allegedly from 

David Zitting (Doc. 350); (3) exhibit 1 (currently lodged at Doc. 353) to Defendant Town 

of Colorado City’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Preclude Letters that Joseph Allred 

allegedly Wrote (Doc. 351); and (4) exhibit A (currently lodged at Doc. 357) to the 

Hildale Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding 

Alleged Communications with Clergy (Doc. 356). 

 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to documents. Kamakana 

v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). A 

party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome the strong presumption by 

articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-1179 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). “In turn, the court must conscientiously 

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 

judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations 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 quotations and citations 

omitted). 

 There is an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed 

discovery document attached to a non-dispositive motion. Id. (internal citations omitted). 

To seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal must 

make a good cause showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. (internal 

citation omitted). However, even when a motion is not traditionally considered to be 

dispositive, if the motion could have a dispositive effect on the case, the compelling 

reasons standard should be applied. See In re Midland Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales 

Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119-1120 (9th Cir. 2012). 

 In this case, Defendants argue that they have shown good cause to seal the 

Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 427 Filed 06/20/13 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

documents attached to the motions in limine. Defendants argue that the documents that 

they seek to exclude are subject to the clergy/communicant (also referred to as the 

priest/penitent) privilege. Defendants assert that because they “believe the Letters to 

Clergy are privileged under this rule, good cause exists to allow them to be sealed” for 

the purposes of the motions in limine. (Doc. 347 at 3). Defendants further argue that, 

regardless of whether the privilege applies, these letters contain communications with a 

religious leader regarding the writer’s innermost thoughts, feelings, and beliefs and this 

would cause annoyance and embarrassment to any individual and “particular annoyance 

and embarrassment would result for FLDS individuals due to the nature of the beliefs 

involved.” (Id.). 

 Defendants assert that seven of the letters that they now seek to seal were 

previously attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants assert that, 

because these letters were previously attached to a Motion for Summary Judgment, they 

must meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing these letters. Defendants assert 

that they have met the compelling reasons standard because Plaintiffs “improperly” seek 

to use these letters to confuse the jury. (Id. at 4). Finally, Defendants argue that “[i]f the 

communications with clergy privilege could not apply to keep letters like these private, a 

chilling effect would occur for all communications with clergy.” (Id. at 5). 

 In Response, Plaintiffs argue that a majority of the letters that Defendants now 

seek to seal have already been filed publicly in this case and have been filed in the public 

records of other Courts. (See Doc. 369 at 3 and Doc. 369-1 at Exhibit 2). Plaintiffs argue 

that, as a result, “Defendants’ request to seal these letters, without any effort to seek a 

protective order and despite knowledge that many of them are already in the public 

domain is disingenuous.” (Doc. 369 at 3). Plaintiffs further argue that the relevance of 

these letters far outweighs any prejudicial value they may have and, thus, the public 

should have access to them. 

 In this case, Defendants have failed to meet either the good cause or compelling 

reasons standard for sealing the documents attached to their motions in limine. First, 

Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 427 Filed 06/20/13 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

with regard to the exhibits that have been filed unsealed in any public record, including 

those that have been filed in this Court’s Record since July 30, 2012, with no party 

seeking to seal them or otherwise obtaining a protective order for them, there is no reason 

to now seal those exhibits. In determining whether to seal a document, “the court must 

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret.” There can be no secrets in previously publicly 

disclosed records that no one has previously sought to protect. As a result, there can be 

no good cause or compelling reasons to keep such non-existent “secrets.” 

 Moreover, Defendants have failed to show compelling reasons or good cause to 

seal any of the letters attached to their Motions in Limine. While the Court agrees that a 

clergy/communicant privilege would certainly constitute a compelling reason to seal 

documents in certain situations, Defendants have offered no explanation as to how they 

have standing to assert the clergy/communicant privilege on behalf of individuals who 

have not sought to protect this information. See, e.g., Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 

506(c), 56 F.R.D. 183, 247 (1972) (“The privilege may be claimed by the person, by his 

guardian or conservator, or by his personal representative if he is deceased. The 

clergyman may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. His authority so to do is 

presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”). Defendants have not cited to any 

authority that would allow a communicant’s employers to assert the clergy/communicant 

privilege on behalf of the communicant. Defendants have offered nothing from the 

individuals who wrote these letters suggesting that those individuals seek to enforce this 

privilege or that those individuals have sought or now seek to prevent these letters from 

public disclosure. Moreover, Defendants have offered no information indicating that, to 

the extent these individuals are aware that these letters are being used in litigation, such 

individuals have made any efforts to protect these letters from further disclosure. 

Likewise, Defendants have made no showing that the individuals who wrote these letters 

would suffer any annoyance or embarrassment from the disclosure of these letters. A 

mere generalized statement that any FLDS member would suffer such annoyance or 

Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 427 Filed 06/20/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

embarrassment is not sufficient to demonstrate good cause or compelling reasons to seal 

and is mere hypothesis and conjecture. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Seal Privileged Motion in 

Limine Exhibits (Doc. 347) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall strike: 

 (1) exhibits 3-6 (currently lodged at Doc. 349) to Defendants’ Motion to 

Preclude Exhibits to Robert Foster’s Deposition; 

 (2) exhibits A and B (currently lodged at Doc. 352) to the Hildale Defendants’ 

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Certain Letters 

allegedly from David Zitting; 

 (3) exhibit 1 (currently lodged at Doc. 353) to Defendant Town of Colorado 

City’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Preclude Letters that Joseph Allred allegedly Wrote; 

and 

 (4) exhibit A (currently lodged at Doc. 357) to the Hildale Defendants’ Motion 

in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Alleged Communications with 

Clergy. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 21, 2013, 

Defendants shall file (1) public copies of the exhibits they previously lodged in support of 

their motions in limine; (2) a notice indicating that Defendants request the Court rule on 

the relevant motions in limine without the sealed exhibits; or (3) a notice of withdrawal 

of the relevant motions in limine. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2013. 

Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 427 Filed 06/20/13 Page 5 of 5