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 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04140-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the CWT Parties’ Motion for Leave to File Documents 

Under Seal (Doc. 145). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied without 

prejudice. 

 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 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 

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

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 149 Filed 05/28/19 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 

omitted). 

 The “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). 

The documents that the CWT Parties want to file under seal seem to go right to the heart 

of this litigation, so it appears that the “compelling reasons” standard applies. 

 The CWT Parties give no reasons whatsoever to justify sealing, other than the 

assertion that the documents at issue were produced “on the understanding these documents 

would be kept confidential.” (Doc. 145 at 2.) This is insufficient. The CWT Parties have 

not attempted to “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 (emphasis added); see also LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion 

or stipulation to file a document under seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and 

legal authority justifying the filing of the document under seal . . . .”) 

 Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that the CWT Parties 

wish to try again, they must include—for each document they wish to file under seal—a 

specific description of the document and compelling reasons for sealing that document, 

supported by specific facts. The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts 

provided are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify 

sealing the documents. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice the CWT Parties’ Motion for Leave 

to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 145). 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2019. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 149 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 2