Melendres v. Skinner, 2:07-cv-02513

Sheriff Gerard A. Sheridan sought to seal and remove from public docket materials underlying the Monitor’s denial of two transfers into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Professional Standards Bureau.
The Monitor identified the documents to be added to the court record so the court and parties could review the Monitor’s decision and preserve a complete record for potential appeal.
Sheridan moved to file the Monitor’s disclosure and Sheridan’s supplement under seal, citing sensitive personnel information (discipline history, PII, and internal processes) and relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d) procedural authority.
The Court emphasized the strong public right of access to judicial records and the presumption in favor of disclosure, which a party must overcome by showing either "compelling reasons" (for dispositive records) or "good cause" (for nondispositive records).
The Court rejected Sheridan’s failure to identify or apply the applicable sealing standard and rejected the notion that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38‑1101(L) creates a blanket litigation privilege; it confirmed the statute, at most, protects ongoing personnel investigations but does not automatically justify permanent sealing of court records.
The Court granted only temporary sealing: it will keep the documents under seal pending parties’ meet-and-confer on redactions, require proposed redactions and justifications to be submitted, and then order a public filing with any approved redactions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Monitor’s underlying materials should be sealed from the public docket	Public/Intervenor: access to records necessary for review and appeal; presumption of public access	Sheridan: materials contain sensitive personnel and PII and should be filed under seal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d)	Denied permanent sealing; granted temporary sealing pending redaction process
Applicable legal standard for sealing judicial records	Public: strong presumption of access; sealing requires compelling reasons or good cause	Sheridan: relied on procedural filing rule without applying sealing standards; invoked state statute for secrecy	Court required invocation of either compelling reasons or good cause and rejected procedural-rule-only argument
Effect of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38‑1101(L) on sealing judicial records	—	Sheridan/Defendants: argued statute requires sealing of officer disciplinary info	Court: § 38‑1101(L) does not create a litigation privilege or blanket sealing; it protects limited investigatory records for ongoing investigations only
Procedure for public filing of sensitive materials	Public: records should be docketed with permissible redactions	Sheridan: sought immediate permanent sealing	Court: ordered temporary seal, 10-day meet-and-confer on redactions, 14-day submission of contested redactions with justifications, then court will rule and order public filing with approved redactions

United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2019) (reaffirming public right of access to judicial records)
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (establishing public right to inspect judicial records)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing "compelling reasons" and presumption of access; police records sealing standard)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting strong presumption of access to court records)
Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing good cause standard for nondispositive materials)