Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

Ruth Bradburn Mitchell; Kenneth

Christopher Mitchell, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Flagstaff; Roy Taylor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-8140-PCT-FJM

ORDER

We have before us a stipulated motion to seal certain documents related to plaintiffs’

motion for sanctions (doc. 214). In that motion, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted serious

allegations of impropriety against defendants’ counsel. We flatly rejected those allegations

and instead characterized plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion as “an attempt to distort facts, slander

opposing counsel, and mislead this court” (doc. 203 at 4). We denied the motion and

awarded defendants costs. 

A party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons supported

by specific factual findings” to overcome the “strong presumption” in favor of the public’s

interest in full disclosure. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79

(9th Cir. 2006). In support of the motion to seal the parties assert only that the motion for

sanctions was denied and the parties subsequently reached a settlement rendering the

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 220 Filed 12/13/12 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 -

allegations in the motion for sanctions moot. This is not a compelling reason to seal judicial

records. While we understand defendants’ counsel’s presumed desire to censor the

slanderous allegations asserted against her, we believe that counsel is sufficiently exonerated

by our denial of the motion for sanctions and award of fees. We believe it is equally

important that the public understand the reason behind the award of fees as well as plaintiffs’

counsel’s questionable practices.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion to seal (doc. 214).

DATED this 12th day of December, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 220 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 2