Melendres et al v Sheridan 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
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.
Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et
al.
Defendants.
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Sheriff Gerard Sheridan’s Motion to Seal Document,
(Doc. 3227) and the supplement thereto (Doc. 3258) that resulted from the parties’ failed
attempt to agree on confidential materials within the documents submitted. (Doc 3244).
The parties are able to agree to the sealing of certain private information from the
Monitor’s counsel, MCSO Command Staff, and MCSO’s counsel. That information may
be sealed. MCSO further asserts that the proposed transferees’ EIS resume, disciplinary
history and CV and the discussion of these materials in additional communications and
documents should be sealed. It strikes the Court, however, that these documents qualify
as public records. Such documents are presumptively open to the public with a “strong
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3304 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
policy favoring open disclosure and access” to them. Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Collins,
175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 11`94, 1198 (1993). “If a document falls within the scope of
the public records statute, then the presumption favoring disclosure applies and, when
necessary, the court can perform a balancing test to determine whether privacy,
confidentiality, or the best interests of the state outweigh the policy in favor of disclosure.”
Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1, 5, 156 P.3d 418, 422 (2007). It is true that the present
context is not a request for public records, but it is not far removed from it, and the Court
would be reluctant to hold that an available public record could be withheld from the public
when it is the subject of a court motion.
The Defendants make no argument that such documents are not public records.
Nevertheless, the Defendants do point out that, under the facts of this case and the present
procedural setting, many of the resume, disciplinary history and CV documents are not
relevant because they did not figure into the analysis as to why the Sheriff’s requests should
be denied. The Court agrees that the nature of some of this information is sufficiently
personally sensitive to meet the “good cause” standard which is applicable in this particular
instance.
However, the records of Captain Morrison, who was deemed ineligible to replace
Captain Reaulo in BIO due to his disciplinary history are relevant to the decision. Such
records for Captain Morrison and the discussion of them, therefore, may not be redacted.
The remainder of the documents may be redacted as submitted for purposes of public filing.
The Defendants shall therefore revise their proposed redactions to remove any redactions
that were included in the correspondence with the Monitor relating to Captain Morrison.
With the approval of Plaintiffs as to those redactions, the redacted documents should be
filed and available to the public.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3304 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2