USA v. Pirie

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
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lynne Bursey Pirie,
Defendant.
No. CR-08-00817-001-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Lynne Bursey Pirie’s Motion to Seal Case
Records. (Doc. 17). The Government filed a Response, (Doc. 20), and Defendant did not
reply. The Court now rules.
On July 23, 2008, Defendant pled guilty to Distribution of Human Growth
Hormone, a class D felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1). (Doc. 17 at 7). Pursuant
to the Government’s request, the Court sealed the Information, Case Summary, Plea
Agreement and Waiver of Indictment that were lodged in this matter. (Doc. 4). The Court
sentenced Defendant to 18 months of probation on October 14, 2008. (Doc. 14 at 1).
Approximately ten months after sentencing, the Government, “at the written request
of [Defendant] Dr. Pirie and her attorney,” moved the court to “unseal the entire file” in
Defendant’s case. (Doc. 15). The Court granted the motion and unsealed the case on August
19, 2009. (Doc. 16).
Defendant now—over 16 years later—moves the Court to re-seal her case under
A.R.S. § 13-911. The Government argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied
Case 2:08-cr-00817-JAT Document 22 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
because she failed to cite federal legal authority, and courts “recognize a general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”
(Doc. 21 at 1–2 (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).
The State of Arizona allows a person, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-911, to petition the
court to seal all case records related to a criminal offense if certain conditions are satisfied.
But Arizona’s sealing statute does not apply to Defendant’s federal conviction. See United
States v. Fox, CR-13-02221-001-TUC-CKJ (BGM), 2024 WL 3292590, at *1–2 (D. Ariz.
July 3, 2024) (finding the Court lacked the jurisdiction and authority to seal defendant’s
case record under A.R.S. § 13-911 because “[f]ederal courts . . . only possess the power
authorized by the Constitution or by federal statute”).
In federal court, “there is ‘a strong presumption in favor of access to court records’”
that can be overcome “only by showing a ‘compelling reason.’” United States v. Sleugh,
896 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Compelling reasons “exist when
such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of
records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or
release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th
Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “[A] litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The Court does not find a compelling reason to seal Defendant’s conviction records
because Defendant does not allege—nor can the Court independently identify—any facts
to suggest that her court records are being used for an improper purpose.
And while the Court could interpret Defendant’s filing as a motion to expunge her
criminal record—an action that is permitted under federal law—she would still not be
entitled to relief. Fox, 2024 WL 3292590, at *1–2 (treating the defendant’s motion to seal
under A.R.S. § 13-911 as a motion to expunge criminal records); United States v. Crowell,
374 F.3d 790, 793 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “federal courts have inherent authority to
expunge criminal records in appropriate and extraordinary cases”). Although the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that “district courts possess ancillary jurisdiction
Case 2:08-cr-00817-JAT Document 22 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
to expunge criminal records,” that authority is limited to “expunging the record of an
unlawful arrest or conviction, or to correcting a clerical error.” United States v. Sumner,
226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts lack the power to expunge a criminal
record of a valid arrest and conviction “solely for equitable considerations.” Id. at 1014–
15.
Defendant does not contest the legality of her arrest or conviction, nor does she
identify any clerical errors in her case. Indeed, Defendant fails to offer any explanation—
even one based on equitable considerations—to support her request to seal (i.e., expunge)
her criminal record. On this record, the Court will not expunge her criminal record.
Because Defendant bases her request for relief on a state statute that is inapplicable
in federal court, and no other grounds exist to justify sealing her arrest or conviction,
Defendant’s request to seal the case is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 17) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal Defendant’s
Motion to Seal, (Doc. 17), and this Court’s February 3, 2026 Order, (Doc. 18).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s request to seal its Response
to Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 20) is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall file the
lodged response at Doc. 21 not under seal.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026.
cc: Dft.
Case 2:08-cr-00817-JAT Document 22 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3