You are on page 1of 3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1620 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.

No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
AMENDED ORDER

Plaintiffs,

12
13

and

14

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

15
16

v.

17

Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.

18
19

Defendants.

20

On February 8, 2016, the Court held a hearing with the Parties, and pursuant to

21

discussions at the hearing, it entered an Order (Doc. 1617) this morning. Nevertheless,

22
23

that Order requires amendment for the following reasons.

24

In an action a party must first notice the Court that it is lodging a document under

25

seal to request that it be authorized to file the document under seal. When the Court

26

authorizes a document to be filed under seal, and the document is so filed, it creates two

27
28

separate docket entries, both of which are under seal and both of which involve the same

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1620 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 3

1

sealed document.

2

In its earlier Order the Court directed the clerk to unseal a large number of docket

3
4
5
6

entries some of which involve the same document. In order to alleviate further confusion
(or at least in an attempt to alleviate further confusion) the Court notes that docket entries
415 and 449 involve the same document. So do docket entries 610 and 615, docket

7
8

entries 814 and 826, docket entries 823 and 827, docket entries 830 and 833, docket

9

entries 845 and 848 and docket entries 1443 and 1529. Therefore the Court revises its

10

Order to delete from its list of documents to be unsealed those docket entries which only

11

represent the filing of the document under seal. The fact that the earlier lodged docket

12
13

entry has been deleted from the Order will not result in any information not being made

14

public.

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing is set for March 1, 2016 at 10:00

16
17
18
19

a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W.
Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151, at which time Defendants may argue
whether the documents lodged and/or filed under seal, Exhibit 14 to Doc. 1335, Docs.

20
21
22
23
24

1529 and 1456 should remain under seal, and all parties may address further matters
which will be noticed by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following documents will remain under
seal: Docs. 1062, 1259, 1313, 1314.

25
26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Docs. 786 and 826 will remain under seal and

27

that Defendants will file public versions of the documents with only the dates of birth of

28
-2-

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1620 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 3

1
2

individuals, if any, redacted. Doc. 848 will remain under seal and Defendants will file a
public version of the document with the name of the business under investigation

3
4
5
6

redacted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Doc. 449 will remain under seal and that
Plaintiffs will file public versions of the documents with the names of the testifying

7
8

persons redacted.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the

10

following documents previously filed under seal: Docs. 615, 698, 719, 730, 783, 788,

11

790, 827, 833, 874, 994, 1033, 1072, 1073, 1077, 1084, 1107, 1420, 1472, and 1563.1

12
13

Dated this 9th day of February, 2016.

14
15
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The previous Order listed Docs. 814, 845 and 1153 as being sealed. Documents
814 and 845 were actually lodged and later filed under seal at Docs. 826, 848 and will
remain under seal as directed above. Document 1153 was lodged and later publicly filed
at Doc. 1166 so it has been removed from this Order.
-3-