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 

Kim Cramton, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04663-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are the Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff/CounterDefendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 127) and the Joint Motion to Seal 

Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 130). For the reasons 

stated below, both motions are 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 
- 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 

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

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). A 

motion for full or partial summary judgment is clearly such a motion, and the parties 

recognize that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to the documents they seek leave 

to seal. (Doc. 127 at 1; Doc. 130 at 2.) 

 The parties have asked the Court to order that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants may 

lodge Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 5, 16-19, 23- 29, 32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 51 under seal. (Doc. 

127 at 3.) The parties described the documents in broad strokes, but for most of the 

documents, the only reason provided to the Court to justify sealing them was that “[t]he 

parties believe that the sensitive nature of this personal and business information presents 

compelling reasons to seal these exhibits.” (Id. at 2.) The Court cannot draw any factual 

conclusions from this vague, generalized statement. The parties noted that “a non-party” 

was promised that two of the documents (Exhibits 41 and 44) would not become public, 

and an additional document (Exhibit 34) “contains an express confidentiality provision.” 

(Id.) The Court does not find these to be compelling reasons to seal these documents. 

 The parties have also asked the Court to order that Defendants may lodge a slew of 

exhibits, which were not separately listed but rather included in a chart containing some 

exhibits which the parties wished to have leave to file under seal and others that the parties 

to do not seek to have sealed. (Doc. 130 at 2, Exh. A.) The parties give no reason for 

sealing any of these documents, other than the same vague, generalized statement that 

“[t]he parties believe that the sensitive nature of this personal and business information 

presents compelling reasons to seal these exhibits.” (Id. at 2.) 

 The 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). Moreover, 
- 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 

the Court notes that at least some of the exhibits the parties seek leave to file under seal 

seem so innocuous that the Court wonders what interest the parties have in maintaining 

secrecy. (See, e.g., Doc. 130 at Exh. 70.) 

 Thus, the motions are denied without prejudice. To the extent that the 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. Furthermore, any proposed order granting relief should list the exhibits the 

parties seek leave to seal, rather than referencing the motion or an exhibit to the motion. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice the Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 127) and the Joint 

Motion to Seal Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 130). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e), the lodged 

documents will not be filed, but will remain under seal. The Court will extend the time 

provided by LRCiv 5.6(e) for the parties to act. The parties may, within 15 days of the 

entry of this Order, (1) confer and agree to remove the confidential designation from the 

exhibits previously designated confidential, and refile the motions for summary judgment, 

containing all exhibits in unsealed form, in the public record, (2) file new drafts of the 

motions for summary judgment in the public record, including and relying on only those 

exhibits that are not designated confidential, or (3) file new joint motions to seal that 

conform with the requirements delineated herein. 

 Dated this 14th day of February, 2019.