Nina Alley v. County of Pima, 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
Nina Alley,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pima, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-15-00152-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Joint Motion to Reopen.
(Doc. 1195.) In the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff states that she1 is lodging the Joint Motion to
Reopen under seal “out of an abundance of caution” and that “Defendants do not believe
it needs to be sealed[.]” (Id.) Defendants filed a Supplement stating that the Joint Motion
to Reopen does not need to be sealed because everything discussed in and attached to the
Joint Motion is publicly available information. (Doc. 1197.)
The common law recognizes a “general right to inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept
secret,” there is “a strong presumption in favor of [public] access.” Kamakana v. City &
Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of overcoming this strong
presumption.” Id. To overcome the presumption of access, “a party must articulate
1 Nina Alley, the Guardian and Conservator of Louis Taylor, has been substituted as the
named plaintiff in this action.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1201 Filed 12/10/25 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
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. (internal alteration and
quotation marks omitted).2
Because the information discussed in and attached to the Joint Motion to Reopen is
publicly available, the Court does not find that compelling reasons exist to seal the Joint
Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal will be denied, and the Court will direct
the Clerk of Court to publicly file the Joint Motion to Reopen. The Court will resolve by
separate Order the Joint Motion to Reopen and Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Joint
Motion to Reopen.
The Court previously sealed a witness declaration and numerous documents related
to that declaration.3 Given the witness’s public testimony in state court, it appears that
compelling reasons no longer exist for maintaining those records under seal. The Court
will provide the parties and the witness’s attorney an opportunity to respond as to whether
any filings in this action should remain sealed.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc.
1195) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall publicly file the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen
(lodged at Doc. 1196).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this
Order to the sealed witness’s attorney Amy Knight.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
2 A lesser presumption of access applies to non-dispositive filings that are “unrelated, or
only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court finds that the compelling reasons
standard applies to the Joint Motion to Reopen given the nature of the Motion.
3 (See, e.g., Docs. 417, 426, 439, 443, 444, 454, 455, 458, 463, 464, 466, 473, 474, 475,
487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 497, 498, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509, 514, 515, 525, 526, 533, 534,
535, 536, 537, 542, 543, 544, 545, 548, 549, 551, 555, 564, 570, 578, 579, 592, 593, 614,
615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 632, 634, 642, 648, 649, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 676, 682,
695, 696, 697, 721, 732, 736, 743, 745, 754, 755, 767, 775, 821, 807, 808, 809, 811, 812,
814, 815, 824, 840, 841, 842, 843, 851, 858, 864, 868, 870, 877, 885, 892, 899, 919, 936,
981, 982, 983, 984, 997, 998, 999, 1054, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1081, 1082,
1085, 1088, 1101, 1117, 1109, 1110, 1125, 1126, 1139, 1140, 1157, 1158, 1190.)
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1201 Filed 12/10/25 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order
is filed, the parties and attorney Amy Knight may file a response showing cause as to why
any specific filing(s) in this action should remain sealed. If no response is filed, or if any
response(s) filed fail to establish compelling reasons for maintaining any specific filing(s)
under seal, the Court will unseal all currently sealed filings in this action.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2025.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1201 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3