Yerbae LLC v. Sweat et al

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
Yerbae LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carl Sweat,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-01686-PHX-KML
ORDER
On February 10, 2025, defendant Carl Sweat filed his answer and counterclaims.
(Doc. 55.) In conjunction, the parties filed a stipulation to allow Sweat to file under seal
an exhibit Sweat wished to attach to his answer and counterclaims. (Doc. 54.) Sweat
describes this exhibit as one of four which he intends to attach to his answer and
counterclaims, contending that exhibit “is important to [his] defenses and counterclaims
and must be included in his upcoming responsive pleading.” (Doc. 53 at 1.) The parties
have a Rule 16 scheduling conference set for February 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM.
It is not clear why Sweat believes his answer and counterclaims “must” include
any exhibits, let alone one under seal. One possibility is that Sweat hopes to use the
exhibits in support of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which he mentions filing
in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. (Doc. 50 at 7.) If that is Sweat’s plan, it is misguided.
“Defendants face an alluring temptation to pile on numerous documents to their
motions to dismiss to undermine the complaint, and hopefully dismiss the case at an early
stage.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). But
Case 2:25-cv-01686-KML Document 57 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
doing so is improper as it “risks premature dismissal of plausible claims that may turn out
to be valid after discovery.” Id. Attaching documents to an answer and then seeking
judgment on the pleadings runs the same risk. There is “a mechanism for putting a
plaintiff to his proof: a motion for summary judgment.” Berk v. Choy, No. 24-440, 2026
WL 135974, at *5 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026). Sweat should not view his answer and
counterclaims as the time for presentation of proof. Therefore, his motion to seal is
denied.1 The exhibit will not be filed under seal or otherwise. The parties may file a
renewed stipulation to file under seal if Sweat is able to provide a convincing explanation
why he “must” file evidence at this time.
IT IS ORDERED the Joint Motion to Seal Document (Doc. 54) is DENIED. This
order shall not be sealed.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
1 Sweat’s prospective motion for judgment on the pleadings would be improper on a
separate basis. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to a
motion to dismiss and undergoes the same standard of review. Dworkin v. Hustler Mag.
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). Having already denied Sweat’s motion to
dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings would not be granted.
Case 2:25-cv-01686-KML Document 57 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2