Sholes v. Apache Junction Police Department

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
Wendy D Sholes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Apache Junction Police Department,
Defendant.
No. CV-14-02517-PHX-DJH
ORDER
This case was initially filed by Plaintiff Wendy D. Sholes (“Plaintiff”) on November
14, 2014. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff later filed an Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 12). The
Court dismissed the case on March 5, 2015. (See Doc. 16). Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint but was informed that no further action would be taken in her closed
case. (Docs. 21–22). Plaintiff has now filed a “Request to Seal Records.” (Doc. 24). In
her Motion, Plaintiff states:
[Plaintiff is] requesting that this civil case that I filed years ago be completely
sealed…. This case was in regards to my very personal information.
(Id. at 1).
The public has a long-standing, “general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial
records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). For
this reason, the party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of overcoming
this strong presumption.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
(9th Cir. 2006). To meet this burden, the moving party must supply the court with
“compelling reasons supported by factual findings.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
Case 2:14-cv-02517-DJH Document 25 Filed 11/03/25 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
Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Mere allegations of confidentiality,
“without any further elaboration or any specific linkage [to] the documents,” do not satisfy
this burden. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Additionally, potential risk of “embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to
seal [the] records.” Id. at 1179.
Here, Plaintiff does not identify what personal information she is seeking to seal or
which documents contain her personal information. Simply claiming that a case regards
personal information, even highly personal information, without further specificity is
insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of access. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49
F.3d 1430, 143 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating the factors courts consider in determining whether
the presumption of public access has been overcome). The presence of personal
information, alone, does not justify sealing an entire case. Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp.
3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (“Any order sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’
to remove from public view only the material that is protected.”). Upon review, the instant
record contains little personal information, such that this long-closed case does not pose a
privacy risk to Plaintiff. In sum, Plaintiff has not overcome presumption in favor of public
access, especially in light of her broad sealing request.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case (Doc. 24) is DENIED. This
case shall remain closed.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:14-cv-02517-DJH Document 25 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2