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

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr., Bar No. 010081

Karen J. Stillwell, Bar No. 022711

Travis B. Hill, Bar No. 021133

O'CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

7955 South Priest Drive

Tempe, Arizona 85284

daniel.oconnor@occlaw.com

karen.stillwell@occlaw.com

travis.hill@occlaw.com

(602) 241-7000

Attorneys for Defendants

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,

vs.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal

Corporation; Antonio Tarango; Officer 

Oswald Grenier; Officer Kevin 

McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; Officer 

Ronaldo Canilao; Officer David Head; 

Officer Susan Heimbinger; Officer James 

Clark; Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer 

Ryan Nielson; Officer Steven Wong; and 

Doe Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

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

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION TO SEAL:

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

On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Response in Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion(s) to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 272, 276).” On December 18, 2020 at 2:30 p.m., Plaintiff first 

contacted Defense counsel regarding the Motion to Seal and requested a meet and confer

the following Monday, December 21, 2020. See Exhibit A, correspondence from 
- 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

Plaintiff’s counsel on December 18, 2020. After multiple exchanges between counsel, 

including Defense Counsel’s quoted reference to the ruling set forth in this Court’s 

December 11, 2020 Sealed Order, Plaintiff’s counsel was advised Defense Counsel was 

out of the office but would be contacted to participate in a meet and confer on Monday, 

December 21, 2020.1 See also Order dated June 5, 2020 at Dkt. No. 188; Sealed Order 

dated December 11, 2020 at Dkt. No. 271; and Exhibit A. Instead of contacting 

undersigned counsel and engaging in a meet and confer on December 21, 2020, Plaintiff’s 

counsel filed an Opposition with the Court. See Dkt. No. 277.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Seal again ignores and defies the Court’s 

Orders in this matter. The parties have been before the Court on this issue multiple times. 

The vast majority of the forty (40) page Motion for Summary Judgment, the twenty (20) 

page Statement of Facts in support of the Motion, and the seventy-four (74) Exhibits have 

previously been deemed confidential pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order at Dkt. 072.

See Dkt. Nos. 188, 271. The reasons for that protection have already been litigated before 

this Court multiple times over the past several months.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s Opposition is premature. Even the cases relied upon by 

Plaintiff addressed whether materials previously deemed confidential would remain 

confidential after a case is fully adjudicated and/or a ruling was issued on the subject 

motions. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Kamakana 

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). To ask this Court to take a 

precognitive approach and unseal confidential information at this stage is entirely improper 

and inappropriate. If the Court unseals confidential information at this stage and an adverse 

1 Interestingly, in his correspondence, Plaintiff suggested that the pleadings be “redacted;” 

however, in his Response in Opposition requests that the Court unseal the entirety of the 

pleadings and exhibits. See Exhibit A. However, even “redacting” the pleadings as 

Plaintiff suggested, would require the bulk of the pleadings be redacted and would render 

them nearly unintelligible.
- 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

ruling to the Defendants is rendered, the confidential nature of the information previously 

sealed is now nullified before there is an adjudication of the issues on their merits. 

Accordingly, it is proper to maintain these pleadings and information under seal at this 

time. Should the Court require Defendants to present “compelling reasons” before the 

Motion for Summary Judgment has been fully briefed, argued, and ruled upon, Defendants 

respectfully request an opportunity to do so.

Defendants respectfully request the Court seal their Motion for Summary Judgment, 

their Statement of Facts in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Exhibits 

submitted. See Dkt. Nos. 272, 273, 274, 275, 276. Defendants also respectfully request the 

Court Order all subsequent briefing, i.e., the Response to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts and Opposing Statement of Facts, and Reply in 

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, including all exhibits referenced by both 

parties, to be filed under seal.

Dated: December 22, 2020. 

O’CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

By: /s/ Karen J. Stillwell

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr.

Karen J. Stillwell

Travis B. Hill

Attorneys for Defendants
- 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 22, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, using the CM/ECF 

System. A Notice of Electronic Filing will be served to the following registered 

participants:

David A. Chami

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC 

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ 

1935 W Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60657

Attorney for Plaintiff

Brian J. Theut

THEUT, THEUT & THEUT

5150 North 16th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Guardian Ad Litem and Statutory 

Representative for A. M. 

By: /s/ Dara J. Wilson