Sholes v. Kelley 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
Wendy D Sholes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas Kelley, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-15-00211-PHX-DJH
ORDER
This case was initially filed by Plaintiff Wendy D. Sholes (“Plaintiff”) on February
6, 2015. (See Doc. 1). The case was, ultimately dismissed, on April 1, 2015, after Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. 12). Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to
Seal Case. (Doc. 15). 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 daughter’s death and is very
personal[.]
(Id. at 1).
It is long established that the public has a “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. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Mere allegations of
Case 2:15-cv-00211-DJH Document 16 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
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.
While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s difficult situation, nothing in this case’s
brief record mentions her daughter’s death. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s Complaint concerns
“police misconduct” that occurred in 2003 but does not make a single reference to her
daughter’s death or her daughter in general. (Id. at 1–2). Moreover, Complaint is devoid
of any personal information that might create a privacy risk for Plaintiff (see id.) and
Plaintiff fails to articulate any other compelling reason for sealing these proceedings.
Therefore, the presumption in favor of public access has not been overcome.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:15-cv-00211-DJH Document 16 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2