-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 RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION(S) TO SEAL 

(DKT. NOS. 272, 276)

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Mussalina Muhaymin, as Personal Representative of the Estate 

of Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin, Jr., by and through undersigned counsel, and in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to seal, states as follows:
-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

1. On August 17, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Seal their (1) Motion for Summary 

Judgment; (2) Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Exhibits 

to Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 272).1

2. In support of said motion, Defendants argue that their “Motion for Summary Judgment, 

Statement of Facts, and Exhibits, reference extensive confidential testimony and documents 

covered by this Court’s Protective Order entered on May 8, 2019 (See Dkt. No. 072), with the 

majority of the Exhibits containing excerpts from confidential documents. See also Order dates 

June 5, 2020 at Dkt. No. 188; Sealed Order dated December 11, 2020 at Dkt. No. 271.” (Dkt. No. 

272). 

3. “A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming th[e] strong 

presumption [in favor of public access] by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State

Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). “That is, the party 

must articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest 

in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). 

4. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests’ of the public 

and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1135). “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. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

1 On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed a separate Motion to Seal 14 additional “non-electronic 

exhibits” under seal. (Dkt. No. 276).
-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

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 

1295 (9th Cir.1986))

5. The “strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive 

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179. The Ninth Circuit has adopted this “principle of disclosure” because “the resolution 

of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in 

ensuring the ‘public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.’” Id.

(quoting Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d at 1294; accord Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135–36 (noting that 

“ ‘summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and serves as a substitute for trial’ ”) 

(quoting Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir.1988)). “Thus, 

‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” 

Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 

order.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136) 

6. Defendants in this case have not even attempted to articulate a compelling reason for filing 

their motion for summary judgment, statement of facts, or accompanying exhibits under seal. In 

fact, as the Ninth Circuit has explicitly held, “the “the presumption of access is not rebutted 

where documents which are the subject of a protective order are filed with the court as 

attachments to summary judgment motions” and that “to retain any protected status for 

documents attached to a summary judgment motion, the proponent must meet the 

‘compelling reasons' standard and not the lesser ‘good cause’ determination.” Foltz v. State Farm

Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003).

7. Defendants qualified immunity defense makes their request to file under seal particularly 

egregious. If, for example, the Court find that a question of fact exists as to whether the officers 
-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

used excessive force, but dismisses Plaintiff’s claim based on qualified immunity grounds, any 

future case with substantially similar facts would also get dismissed on qualified immunity 

grounds since this case was concealed from public view. Sealing motions for summary judgment 

(and supporting exhibits) in cases such as this would defeat any potential justification for granting 

immunity in the first place. If sealing these filings were common practice, it is difficult to imagine 

how Plaintiff could possibly be expected to establish that existing precedent has placed the 

constitutional question beyond debate, where those cases do not exist in the public record. 

Defendant’s request to seal these filings in wholly inappropriate and unwarranted under the 

circumstances. See e.g., Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 884 (9th Cir. 2018).

8. Because Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing a articulating a 

compelling reason for sealing its Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Facts, and 

Exhibits, the presumption of public access must prevail and Defendants’ Motion(s) to Seal must 

be denied. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendants’

Motion(s) to Seal (Dkt. 272, 276). 

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December 2020.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

/s/David A. Chami

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

THE LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ, PLLC

Haytham Faraj, CA #2914186

Attorneys for Plaintiff
-5-

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 21, 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

/s/ Florence Lirato