Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`WO
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
`behalf of himself and all others similarly
`situated; et al.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor,
`
`
`and
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as
`Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Proposed Intervenors the Associated Press (“AP”), and
`
`journalists Jacques Billeaud and Jude Joffe-Block’s (collectively, “Intervenors”) Motion
`
`to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Challenging Sealing of Records and Motion to
`
`Unseal Records (Doc. 2785.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of
`
`requesting that certain documents be unsealed. The Intervenors filed the motion to
`
`intervene and unseal documents on July 13, 2022. Specifically, Intervenors request to
`
`unseal quarterly status reports pertaining to Armendariz Investigations spanning between
`
`April 2017 to August 2022. Intervenors also request that the Court unseal documents
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`related to various other administrative and criminal investigations. Plaintiffs do not oppose
`
`the intervention or unsealing of these documents and echoed Proposed Intervenors
`
`arguments that the Court should direct that the documents be unsealed. Sheriff Penzone
`
`and MCSO do not oppose the motion to intervene or unseal but maintain that “if any new
`
`Armendariz Investigations are opened in the future, any reports or other information about
`
`such investigations should be filed with the Court under seal and should remain under seal
`
`during the pendency of those investigations.” (Doc. 2797 at 4.)
`
`I. Motion to Intervene
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The Court construes Intervenors’ request to intervene as a request for permissive
`
`intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). “Nonparties seeking access to
`
`judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking permissive intervention.” San Jose
`
`Mercury News v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit
`
`has explicitly recognized that “the press and other interested third parties retain their right
`
`to intervene and request that particular documents be unsealed.” United States v. Gurolla,
`
`333 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2003). Additionally, a “non-party moving to intervene solely
`
`for the purpose of accessing records need not show a nexus of fact or law with the main
`
`action.” Muhaymin v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-17-04565-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 5173767,
`
`at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2021).
`
`Here, Intervenors are journalists and a news organization who have reported
`
`extensively on this case. (Doc. 2785.) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants oppose their
`
`intervention for the limited purpose of filing their motion to unseal documents. Because
`
`the Intervenors seek to vindicate the public’s right of access, the Court grants their motion
`
`to intervene for that limited purpose.
`
`II. Motion to Unseal Documents
`
`The next issue before the Court is whether to unseal the documents that Intervenors
`
`allege fail to satisfy the criteria to remain sealed. The proper standard when considering
`
`whether to seal the documents is whether the party filing the document offers “compelling
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`reasons” for the document to be filed under seal. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
`
`447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). The compelling reasons standard highlights the
`
`fact that “[i]n this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court
`
`records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`Additionally, if sensitive information can be redacted “while leaving other meaningful
`
`information,” rather than “only meaningless connective words and phrases,” redaction is
`
`preferred. Id. at 1137.
`
`Intervenors seek to unseal nearly forty documents that were previously filed under
`
`seal. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants oppose the motion to unseal. Most of the
`
`documents that Intervenors request to be unsealed relate to Armendariz Investigations or
`
`other related internal investigations. Defendant acknowledges that the majority of
`
`Armendariz Investigations have now been completed so the majority of the filings
`
`Intervenors seek to have unsealed relate to closed investigations. Because the filings do
`
`not relate to open investigations, Defendant does not seek to show compelling reasons why
`
`the documents should remain sealed. (Doc. 2797 at 3.) In the absence of any compelling
`
`reasons why the documents pertaining to closed investigations should remain sealed, the
`
`presumption of public access favors unsealing these documents.
`
`At this time, is not necessary for the Court to decide at this time which hypothetical
`
`future filings related to new internal investigations should be filed under seal. Defendants
`
`should continue to file motions to seal for documents containing highly sensitive
`
`information. If Defendants believe a document should be sealed, Defendants should lodge
`
`the document under seal and file a motion to seal articulating the compelling reasons for
`
`sealing the document in full. If the Court finds those reasons insufficient or finds that the
`
`highly sensitive information contained in the filings “can be redacted with minimal effort,”
`
`Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137, it will require Defendants to file a redacted version on the public
`
`docket.
`
`The last issue is how Defendants should proceed in light of discovering previously
`
`filed quarterly reports that were filed with missing data. (Doc. 2797 at 5.) In responding
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2819 Filed 09/30/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`to this motion to unseal documents, MCSO explained that it identified certain reports in
`
`which “certain rows of data were inadvertently omitted from some of the under-seal
`
`filings.” (Doc. 2797 at 5.) MCSO has explained that the spreadsheet is cumulative and
`
`therefore closed reports do not get deleted from the spreadsheet. This means that the most
`
`recent version of the report contains all the investigations that should have been included
`
`in the incomplete reports, as well as any new investigations opened since then. Because
`
`MCSO has represented that the most recent version of the spreadsheet contains the most
`
`current information about all Armendariz investigations, the incomplete filings do not omit
`
`information that would otherwise be unavailable if MCSO does not update the filings.
`
`Further, because the most recent filing will be made available to the public as a result of
`
`the instant motion, the public will nevertheless have access to all of the information that
`
`was omitted from the original filings. As such, MCSO need not file updated versions of
`
`the spreadsheets.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Unseal Documents (Doc. 2785) is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the following
`
`documents: Docs. 1625, 1662, 1674, 1710, 1725, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1795, 1800, 1819,
`
`1820, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1928, 1951, 2002, 2209, 2271, 2297, 2320, 2367, 2438, 2451,
`
`2473, 2492, 2526, 2542, 2563, 2589, 2629, 2686, 2715, 2752, 2778.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 29th day of September, 2022.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`