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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kim Cramton, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-04663-PHX-DWL 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw a portion of her pending 

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 184) and two motions filed by Defendants to 

withdraw or strike certain pages from the docket (Docs. 185, 186). All three motions are 

unopposed. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and grants in 

part Defendants’ motions. 

 Plaintiff “moves to withdraw [her] request for summary judgment with respect to 

the amount of damages ($56,499) claimed in support of her minimum wage claim.” (Doc. 

184.) She notes that her she is still moving for summary judgment on this claim with 

respect to liability. (Id.) Given that Defendants do not oppose it, the Court grants the

motion. 

 Defendants state in both their motions that they inadvertently filed on the docket 

certain documents containing personal and private information. (Doc. 185 at 2; Doc. 186 

at 2.) They further note that the Court has already granted them leave to file these same 

documents under seal. (Id., citing Docs. 149, 151.) They, thus, request that the Court strike 

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 203 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

the specific pages containing the personal and private information or strike the documents 

in their entirety. (Doc. 185 at 3; Doc. 186 at 2-3.) 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that striking the documents will not achieve 

Defendants’ desired result—stricken documents remain publicly accessible on the docket. 

Thus, Defendants should instead have moved for the Court to seal the documents. 

Defendants have not, however, presented sufficiently compelling reasons to seal any 

documents in their entirety. As noted in the Court’s sealing order, because the public has 

a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, 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 omitted). 

The Court previously found that documents addressing the sensitive medical 

condition of one of the parties could be filed under seal. (Doc. 149 at 2-3.) Accordingly, 

the Court will allow the specific pages addressing that condition to be filed under seal. To 

effectuate that, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to seal Docs. 132 and 143-4 in their 

entirety, but Defendants must then refile both these documents with the appropriate 

redactions. The Court further notes that it previously struck Docs. 128-1 and 128-2 from 

the docket (Doc. 149 at 3-4), but it should instead have ordered the Clerk of Court to seal 

those documents. Thus, the Court will so order here and then order Plaintiff to refile those 

documents with the appropriate redactions. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 203 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw a portion of her pending motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 184) is granted; 

2. Defendants’ motions to withdraw or strike certain pages from the docket (Docs. 185 

& 186) are granted in part on the grounds stated above; 

3. The Clerk of Court shall seal Docs. 128-1, 128-2, 132, and 143-4; 

4. Plaintiff shall refile Doc. 128-1 with redactions made to page 70 by July 31, 2019; 

5. Plaintiff shall refile Doc. 128-2 with redactions made to page 47 by July 31, 2019; 

6. Defendants shall refile Doc. 132 with redactions made to pages 1, 76, 103, and 104 

by July 31, 2019; and 

7. Defendants shall refile Doc. 143-4 with redactions made to page 51 by July 31, 

2019. 

 Dated this 17th day of July, 2019. 

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 203 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 3