-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, CA #291416

Admitted pro hac vice

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 OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL 

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF ARIZ. 

R. PROF. COND. E.R. 4.2 & 3.6, AND 

LOCAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 83.8 AND MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff, Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), hereby submits her Opposition to

Defendants City of Phoenix, Antonio Tarango, Oswald Grenier, Kevin McGowan, Jason 

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 7
-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

Hobel, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbigner, James Clark, Dennis Leroux, 

Ryan Nielsen and Steven Wong’s (“Defendants”) Motion [doc. 329] (“Motion”) to Seal 

Notice of Violations of Ariz. R. Prof. Cond. E.R. 4.2 & 3.6, and Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 83.8 and Motion for Sanctions (“Motion for Sanctions”), and states the 

following:

As this Court has noted, “[i]t has long been recognized that the public has a general 

right of access ‘to inspect and copy ... judicial records and documents.’” PCT Int'l Inc. v. 

Holland Elecs. LLC, No. CV-12-01797-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (D. Ariz. 

Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 

1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). “This right extends to all judicial records except those that 

have ‘traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,’ namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials.” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1

(quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006). 

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption 

in favor of access' is the starting point.” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (quoting 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003))).

“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this 

strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons' standard.” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 

WL 4722326, at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 

1135)). “The party must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 7
-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

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” PCT Int'l 

Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted)). 

“A court deciding to seal judicial records must ‘base its decision on a compelling 

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.’” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995))

Pertinent here, “[t]he presumption of public access is not rebutted merely because

‘documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments....’” PCT Int'l 

Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). “A party seeking to seal 

a judicial record must still meet its heavy burden of demonstrating compelling reasons 

exist for sealing.” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179).

Defendants fail to even attempt to meet this “heavy burden” in their Motion, which 

simply cites to the stipulated protective order governing discovery in this case and seems 

to expect that the Court will shirk its duty in requiring that the strong “presumption of 

public access” be rebutted. This Court deemed such conclusory “argument” insufficient 

in PCT Int’l. Inc., where the parties’ motions to seal relied principally “upon the parties' 

prior designations of documents as confidential pursuant to the Court's Protective Order.” 

PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 4722326, at *1. Here, as in PCT Int’l. Inc., “[t]he Protective 

Order applies only to discovery...” Id.

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 7
-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

Therefore, Defendants must make a separate showing that the Motion should be 

sealed from public view. This Defendants cannot do. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions 

represents yet another baseless attack on the free speech rights of Plaintiff and her counsel, 

containing blatant falsehoods and gross mischaracterizations. Regardless, there is 

absolutely nothing in the body of the Motion for Sanctions or the unsupported accusations 

therein that warrants sealing the motion from the public’s view. If Defendants wish to 

level slanderous allegations against Plaintiff and her counsel, they are required to do so 

publicly.

None of the information set forth in the Motion for Sanctions is confidential, and 

all of the information contained therein is public record. The majority of the Motion for 

Sanctions takes issue with a letter, written by Plaintiff’s counsel to Plaintiff’s city 

representatives,

1 demanding political action in the case of her brother’s death at the hands 

of Defendant Officers. See Motion, pg. 4-6. The only piece of information that Defendants 

claim to actually be confidential in its Motion for Sanctions is the undisputed fact that 

one of the Defendant Officers received a promotion after Mr. Muhaymin’s death. This has 

been public knowledge for nearly a year.2 Furthermore, the information related to the 

promotion came from a news media outlet performing an inquiry regarding one of the 

officers named in an expose related to Phoenix police officers involved in making racist 

1

See U.S. Const. amend. I (guaranteeing the right to petition the government); see also Ariz. Const. 

art. 2, §5(same).

2 See Body cam video released in 2017 police killing of Muhammad Muhaymin Jr: 'Allah? He's 

not going to help you', Religion News Service (2020), https://religionnews.com/2020/08/20/bodycam-video-muhammad-muhaymin-police-please-allah-help-cant-breathe-black-muslim/ 

(last visited May 4, 2021)

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 7
-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

statements on social media.3 The story clearly identifies one of the officers by name and 

states that he is now a Sergeant. 

Furthermore, employment information of Arizona’s public servants, including law 

enforcement officers, is public record, which is presumptively available to the Arizona 

public. “Arizona law defines 'public record' broadly and creates a presumption requiring 

the disclosure of public documents.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz. v. Ariz. Dep't of 

Child Safety, 377 P.3d 339, 344 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (citing A.R.S. § 39). “[D]ocuments 

having a ‘substantial nexus' with a government agency's activities qualify as public 

records.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz., 377 P.3d at 344 (quoting Griffis v. Pinal 

County, 215 Ariz. 1, 4 (Ariz. 2007)). The rank of law enforcement officers certainly has a 

“substantial nexus” to government activities, as it dictates the relative authority of 

personnel on the police force, and identifies those public servants to whom the public may 

go with complaints about subordinates.

This presumption of disclosure is only rebutted by statutory exception or where 

documents are “of a purely private or personal nature” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz., 

377 P.3d at 344 (citing Griffis, 215 Ariz. at 4); See also Scottsdale Unified School Dist. v. 

KPNX BC, 191 Ariz. 297, 299 (Ariz. 1998) (holding that a public employee’s date of birth 

was purely private information, and therefore not public record). It cannot reasonably be 

argued that a change in a police officer’s rank is “purely private or personal.” Officers are 

3

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-police-sergeants-officers-disciplinedfacebook-posts-muslims-11373173

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 7
-6-

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

public servants, and the responsibilities and authorities inherent in positions of different 

rank have nothing to do with an officer’s personal or private life. 

Defendants’ Motion fails to assert a compelling argument why the Motion for 

Sanctions, containing no confidential information whatsoever, should be sealed from the 

public. This is fatal to Defendants’ request. Defendants are required to “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure...’” PCT Int'l Inc., 2014 WL 

4722326, at *1 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Having failed to do so, 

Defendants are not entitled to have the Court hide their insidious slander and baseless 

character attacks from the public. Plaintiff will respond to the request for sanctions in 

timely fashion. 

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of May, 2021.

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/ David A. Chami 

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 7
-7-

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 May 4, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing 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. 

/s/ Florence Lirato 

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 333 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 7