Page 1 of 7 

Michael E. Tankersley

Naomi Takagi 

Brian Berggren

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20580

mtankersley@ftc.gov

(202) 326-2991

ntakagi@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3668

bberggren@ftc.gov

(202) 326-3229

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Federal Trade Commission, 

Plaintiff,

 v. 

Grand Canyon Education, Inc.; 

Grand Canyon University; and

Brian E. Mueller, 

Defendants.

No. CV-23-02711-PHX-JZB

MOTION TO TEMPORARILY 

SEAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“Plaintiff” or “FTC”)

respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6, 15 U.S.C. § 57b-2, 

and 16 C.F.R. § 4.10(g), for an order temporarily sealing the unredacted 

Complaint in this action for fourteen days. The FTC makes this request to 

comply with its regulations that allow entities to designate information 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 7
Page 2 of 7 

submitted to the FTC in response to compulsory process as confidential, and 

to give defendants that made such designations − Grand Canyon Education, 

Inc. and Grand Canyon University (collectively, the “Corporate 

Defendants”) − an opportunity to waive their confidentiality claims or 

demonstrate that compelling reasons warrant denying public access to 

redacted portions of the Complaint. 

The FTC does not claim that any information in the Complaint should 

remain under seal, and it has filed the redacted Complaint solely to afford 

the Corporate Defendants the opportunity to show otherwise. The Corporate 

Defendants provided responses to FTC Civil Investigative Demands 

(“CIDs”) and designated their responses as confidential pursuant to federal 

statute and FTC rules. See 15 U.S.C. § 57b-2; 16 C.F.R. § 4.10(e), (f); see 

also 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(b) (describing CIDs as the only form of compulsory 

process in investigations into unfair or deceptive acts or practices). The 

Complaint references images and information that Corporate Defendants 

designated confidential. FTC regulations afford parties who submit 

confidential information “an opportunity to seek an appropriate protective or 

in camera order” before the FTC can publicly disclose such information in a 

court or administrative proceeding. 16 C.F.R. § 4.10(g). Plaintiff has 

accordingly filed a redacted version of the Complaint on the public docket, 

Dk. No. 1, lodged the unredacted Complaint, and filed this Motion to 

temporarily seal the unredacted Complaint pending an opportunity for the 

Corporate Defendants to evaluate their previous confidentiality designations 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 7
Page 3 of 7 

and seek appropriate relief from the Court, if needed. The FTC has provided 

the Corporate Defendants with a copy of the unredacted Complaint, and will 

serve a copy of any order the Court enters with respect to this Motion. 

To expedite the process of making court records public, the FTC 

requests that the Court unseal the unredacted Complaint if no motion to seal 

has been filed within fourteen days after the Court issues an order to 

temporarily seal this document. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 & County. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). “Courts have consistently treated complaints as 

judicial records for purposes of determining whether the common-law right 

of access applies.” FTC v. AbbVie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 

2013). Moreover, the courts have recognized a First Amendment right of 

prompt access to civil complaints. Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 947 

F.3d 581, 591-95 (9th Cir. 2020). 

To overcome these rights of access, a party must “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

Kamakana, 447 F.3d. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to filings that 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7

are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto 

Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

Under this standard, the party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of showing that it has “compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings” to keep the information secret, and that those compelling 

reasons “outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 

favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). “The 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.” Id. at 

1179.

This Court’s procedures for protecting access to judicial records 

include LRCiv 5.6. It provides that a party that maintains that a civil filing 

should remain under seal must seek a court order and set forth: “a clear 

statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the 

document under seal.” LRCiv 5.6(b). Likewise, when a document 

previously designated confidential pursuant to a protective order or 

confidentiality agreement is lodged with the court as part of a filing, the 

party that requested confidential treatment has fourteen days to file and serve 

either (i) a notice withdrawing the confidentiality designation, or (ii) a 

motion to seal and a supporting memorandum with facts and legal authority

justifying the filing of the document under seal. LRCiv. 5.6(d). 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 4 of 7
Page 5 of 7 

ARGUMENT

The FTC respectfully requests that the Court temporarily seal the 

unredacted Complaint for fourteen days to afford the Corporate Defendants 

an opportunity to demonstrate they have a basis for overcoming the interests 

in access to material in the Complaint that they have asserted is confidential. 

During the FTC’s investigation, the Corporate Defendants provided 

documents, interrogatory responses, and testimony, and designated all the 

material they provided as confidential. The FTC may disclose such material

“in judicial proceedings to which the Commission is a party,” 15 U.S.C. § 

57b-2(d)(1)(C), (d)(2), but FTC regulations require that, prior to public 

disclosure of such information, the producing parties “be afforded an 

opportunity to seek an appropriate protective or in camera order.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 4.10(g).

Plaintiff has filed a public version of the Complaint that redacts 

allegations that are based solely on information the Corporate Defendants 

designated as confidential in their CID responses. In a separate filing, 

lodged under seal with this motion, Plaintiff has filed the unredacted 

Complaint. The FTC does not contend that the redacted material reveals 

information that would justify preventing public access; redactions have 

been made to allow the producing parties time to either demonstrate a 

compelling interest in withholding this information, or waive the 

confidentiality designations. Filing of the redacted Complaint, coupled with 

a short period for the Corporate Defendants to file a motion to seal, is the 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 5 of 7
Page 6 of 7 

least restrictive alternative for preserving public access consistent with 15 

U.S.C. § 57b-2 and 16 C.F.R. § 4.10.

Local Rule 5.6(d) imposes a requirement to confer and submit a notice 

where a document has been designated as confidential by another party 

“pursuant to a protective order or confidentiality agreement.” Here, the 

Complaint references materials that are not subject to an order or 

confidentiality agreement, but were marked confidential during an agency 

investigation subject to the FTC’s rules, prior to the filing of the Complaint. 

Nonetheless, to the extent the Court finds the Local Rules require a 

conference in connection with this motion to temporarily seal the Complaint, 

the FTC respectfully requests the Court waive those requirements because 

the FTC could not have conferred with the Corporate Defendants prior to 

filing the Complaint without revealing its then-nonpublic lawsuit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court should enter the Proposed Order and 

temporarily seal portions of the Complaint to permit defendants Grand 

Canyon Education, Inc. and Grand Canyon University to file and serve 

either a notice waiving any claim that public access should be denied to the 

unredacted Complaint or a motion to seal the unredacted Complaint, or 

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7 

portions thereof, and a supporting memorandum that sets forth the facts and 

legal authority that justify denying public access. 

Dated: December 28, 2023 

Respectfully submitted,

/S/

______________________

Michael E. Tankersley

Naomi Takagi 

Brian Berggren

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20580

mtankersley@ftc.gov

(202) 326-2991

ntakagi@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3668

bberggren@ftc.gov

(202) 326-3229

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission

Case 2:23-cv-02711-JZB Document 5 Filed 12/28/23 Page 7 of 7