govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00152-22

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 
 
 
Nina Alley, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
County of Pima, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
No. CV-15-00152-TUC-RM 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Joint Motion to Reopen . 
(Doc. 1195.) In the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff states that she1 is lodging the Joint Motion to 
Reopen under seal “out of an abundance of caution” and that “Defendants do not believe 
it needs to be sealed[.]” (Id.) Defendants filed a Supplement stating that the Joint Motion 
to Reopen does not need to be sealed because everything discussed in and attached to the 
Joint Motion is publicly available information. (Doc. 1197.) 
The common law recognizes a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 
435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept 
secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of [public] access.” Kamakana v. City & 
Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
“A party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of overc oming this strong 
presumption.” Id. To overcome the presumption of access, “a party must articulate 
 
1 Nina Alley, the Guardian and Conservator of Louis Taylor, has been substituted as the 
named plaintiff in this action. 

 
- 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 
 
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. (internal alteration and 
quotation marks omitted).2 
Because the information discussed in and attached to the Joint Motion to Reopen is 
publicly available, the Court does not find that compelling reasons exist to seal the Joint 
Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal will be denied, and the Court will direct 
the Clerk of Court to publicly file the Joint Motion to Reopen. The Court will resolve by 
separate Order the Joint Motion to Reopen and Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Joint 
Motion to Reopen. 
The Court previously sealed a witness declaration and numerous documents related 
to that declaration. 3 Given the witness’s public testimony in state court, it appears that 
compelling reasons no longer exist for maintaining those records under seal. The Court 
will provide the parties and the witness’s attorney an opportunity to respond as to whether 
any filings in this action should remain sealed. 
 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc. 
1195) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall publicly file the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen 
(lodged at Doc. 1196). 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court sha ll send a copy of this 
Order to the sealed witness’s attorney Amy Knight. 
. . . . 
. . . . 
. . . . 
. . . . 
 
2 A lesser presumption of access applies to non -dispositive filings that are “unrelated, or 
only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court finds that the compelling reasons 
standard applies to the Joint Motion to Reopen given the nature of the Motion. 
3 (See, e.g., Docs. 417, 426, 439, 443, 444, 454, 455, 458, 463, 464, 466, 473, 474, 475, 
487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 497, 498, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509, 514, 515, 525, 526, 533, 534, 
535, 536, 537, 542, 543, 544, 545, 548, 549, 551, 555, 564, 570, 578, 579, 592, 593, 614, 
615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 632, 634, 642, 648, 649, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 676, 682, 
695, 696, 697, 721, 732, 736, 743, 745, 754, 755, 767, 775, 821, 807, 808, 809, 811, 812, 
814, 815, 824, 840, 841, 842, 843, 851, 858, 864, 868, 870, 877, 885, 892, 8 99, 919, 936, 
981, 982, 983, 984, 997, 998, 999, 1054, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1081, 1082, 
1085, 1088, 1101, 1117, 1109, 1110, 1125, 1126, 1139, 1140, 1157, 1158, 1190.) 

 
- 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 
 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order 
is filed, the parties and attorney Amy Knight may file a response showing cause as to why 
any specific filing(s) in this action should remain sealed. If no response is filed, or if any 
response(s) filed fail to establish compelling reasons for maintaining any specific filing(s) 
under seal, the Court will unseal all currently sealed filings in this action. 
 Dated this 10th day of December, 2025. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight