Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-04663/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-04663-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

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

Kim Cramton,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04663-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 257), which seeks to 

seal portions of her Motion in Limine No. 3 (“MIL 3”) and Motion in Limine No. 4 (“MIL 

4”), redacted versions of which are filed (Docs. 260, 261) and unredacted versions of which 

are lodged under seal (Docs. 263, 264).

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 generally 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 

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 271 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

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

omitted).

This “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). A 

lower standard applies to “sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the 

merits of a case,” which requires only that a party establish “good cause” for sealing. Id.

at 1097. Motions in limine are not discovery motions, and the Ninth Circuit has stated that 

“plenty of technically nondispositive motions—including routine motions in limine—are 

strongly correlative to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1099. Plaintiff’s motion to seal assumes

that the “compelling reasons” standard applies. (Doc. 257 at 2.)

The arguments proffered in Plaintiff’s motion do not satisfy the “compelling 

reasons” standard. Plaintiff’s contention that the material was designated confidential 

under the Court’s protective order is unavailing—that does not justify sealing. (Doc. 57 at 

6 [protective order: “Before any [materials designated as confidential] are filed with the 

Court for any purpose, the party seeking to file such material must seek permission of the 

Court to file the material under seal. Nothing in this order shall be construed as 

automatically permitting a party to file under seal.”].) Additionally, although some of the 

topics addressed in MIL 3 and MIL 4 may be embarrassing and unflattering, “[t]he mere 

fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, 

or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Finally, although it is true that many “district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit have held that the ‘sensitive and confidential nature of medical records’ is a 

compelling reason that” justifies sealing such records, Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

2018 WL 18111470, *3 (D. Or. 2018) (canvassing cases), MIL 3 and MIL 4 do not contain 

information gleaned from anyone’s medical records.

...

...

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 271 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 257) is denied. The lodged, 

unredacted versions of MIL 3 and MIL 4 will remain lodged under seal and will not be 

filed. The redacted versions of MIL 3 and MIL 4 are struck. Plaintiff may file unredacted 

versions of MIL 3 and MIL 4 (or may make another attempt at justifying sealing) by March 

4, 2020.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 271 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 3