Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00231/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00231-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT Still University
Defendant
Jana James
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Jana James,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AT Still University,

Defendant.

No. CV-23-00231-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jana James moves to seal “all case documents, and maintain this case and 

all case documents under seal indefinitely.” (Doc. 67.) The public has a right to access 

judicial records. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court—N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 

F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 1999). When a party asks the Court to seal documents, the Court 

begins “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). If the document at issue is related 

to the merits of the case, the party asking the Court to seal it must provide a compelling 

reason for doing so. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2016). If the document is unrelated to the merits of the case, the party must provide at 

least a good reason for sealing it. Id. at 1097-99. Additionally, sealing entire documents is 

disfavored when sensitive information can be adequately protected through redactions.

Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy these standards. Plaintiff asks the Court to seal 

the entire case forever, without identifying specific documents in the record that she 

Case 2:23-cv-00231-DLR Document 68 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

believes contain sensitive information that should be sealed from public view. Plaintiff also 

has not explained whether those documents are related or unrelated to the merits of the 

case, or why her privacy concerns cannot be addressed by redacting parts of the documents, 

as opposed to sealing the entirety of them. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is 

denied, but Plaintiff may renew her request by (1) identifying specific documents on the 

docket that she believes should be sealed, (2) explaining whether these documents are 

related to the merits of her case, (3) providing either a good reason or a compelling reason

for sealing the documents (depending on whether they relate to the merits of her case), and 

(4) explaining whether her privacy concerns can be addressed by redacting parts of the 

documents, rather than sealing them entirely. If Plaintiff’s concerns can be addressed 

through redactions, Plaintiff must provide versions of the relevant documents with the 

sensitive information redacted.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 67) is DENIED.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2024.

Douglas L. Rayes

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-00231-DLR Document 68 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2