-1-

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

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

T: (818) 600-5515

F: (818) 600-5415

david@pricelawgroup.com

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ

1935 W Belmont Ave.

Chicago, IL 60657

T: (312) 635-0800

F: (202) 280-1039

haytham@farajlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr., 

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal 

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-17-04565-PHX-SMB

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM

RE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

Plaintiff hereby submits her memorandum, pursuant to the Court’s minute entry on 

February 11, 2020.

Defendants have sought to designate the entirety of deposition transcripts as confidential. 

Nothing in the parties’ stipulated protective order or in the governing case law supports such a 
-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

position. Defendants’ wish to designate entire deposition transcript as confidential seeks a 

grossly overbroad and burdensome to Plaintiff. 

The Stipulated Protective Order in place in this case [Doc. 72], entered on May 8, 2019, 

provides: 

Documents are to be designated confidential ONLY if they contain 

non-public, confidential: (1) medical and/or mental health 

information that is protected under HIPAA or any other applicable 

state or federal law; (2) financial information; (3) personal 

identifying information (social security number or birth date); (4) or 

other private information wherein there exists a reasonable 

expectation of privacy based upon applicable federal or state law. 

(emphasis added). Doc 72 at ¶ 3.

“Confidential Information” is further defined as “any documents, evidence, 

testimony, materials, or other information, whether written or oral, exchanged, 

revealed, or presented in these proceedings, designated in good faith as 

‘Confidential’ by any party. Confidential Information shall include, but not be 

limited to: 

(1) private medical, physiological, and/or mental health records 

protected under HIPAA or any other applicable state or federal law; 

(2) financial information; 

(3) inmate records that are not-publicly available, but excluding 

housing history and any information available through public 

websites; 

(4) employment records; 

(5) personal identifying information (social security number); 

(6) private information wherein there exists a reasonable expectation 

of privacy based upon applicable federal or state law; 

(7) correspondence between a plaintiff and a plaintiff’s family or 

friends, provided such documents have not previously been made 

public; 

(8) confidential or proprietary business information including, but 

not limited to, policies, practices, operations, data, agreements, 

complaints, investigations, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and 

electronic or other written communications; and 
-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

(9) information and documents (including electronically stored 

information) not generally available to the public as well as any 

copies or summaries of such information or any materials that reveal 

the contents of such information. Doc 72 at ¶ 4.

In addition to the limited categories of information that may be designated 

as confidential, it bears noting that, per the protective order in place, “Documents 

and information shall not be designated Confidential Information to the extent 

they are otherwise publicly available.” Id. 

Defendant does not explain with any specificity what information is 

confidential or why. They simply seek entire deposition transcripts designated as 

confidential even though they involve testimony about: 1) events that transpired in 

the public; 2) have been widely publicized in the media (by the City of Phoenix)

and in public records; and 3) are bereft of any of the categories of information 

which the; protective order describes as available for a confidential designation. 

In analyzing a document’s confidentiality designation, the courts should 

recognize “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether 

disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for 

scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Mere baldface assertions of confidentiality are insufficient. “The district court must base its 

decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 

Co., 331 F.3d 1122. 1135 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendants have not made a showing, or even tried, that the deposition 

transcripts at issue contain “(1)medical and/or mental health information; “(2) 

financial information;” “(3) personal identifying information (social security 

number or birth date)”; “(4) or other private information wherein there exists a 

reasonable expectation of privacy.” Doc. 72 at ¶ 3. The deposition discuss training 

received by Phoenix police officers, as well as the perception of the officer of 
-4-

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

events that were captured on video from many angles and have been widely 

disseminated. As such Defendants’ efforts to designate non-confidential 

deposition transcripts as confidential should be rejected, and, to the extent that 

certain information within the transcripts is confidential, only those portions of the 

transcript that are actually confidential should be so delegated and an specific 

identification of the reasons for the designation should be provided. 

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of February 2020.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/ David A. Chami 

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 18, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. Notice of such filing will be sent to all 

attorneys of record in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-ECF 

participants, hard copies of the foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery or by 

postal mail.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/ Florence Lirato