Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al. v. United States of America; Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS 9 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al. ORDER — 10 — Plaintiffs, — 11 — and — 12 — United States of America, — 13 — Plaintiff-Intervenor, — 14 — v. — 15 — Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity 16 as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al. — 17 — 18 Defendants. — 19 — 20 Pending before the Court is Sheriff Gerard Sheridan’s Motion to Seal Document, 21 (Doc. 3227) and the supplement thereto (Doc. 3258) that resulted from the parties’ failed 22 attempt to agree on confidential materials within the documents submitted. (Doc 3244). 23 The parties are able to agree to the sealing of certain private information from the 24 Monitor’s counsel, MCSO Command Staff, and MCSO’s counsel. That information may 25 be sealed. MCSO further asserts that the proposed transferees’ EIS resume, disciplinary 26 history and CV and the discussion of these materials in additional communications and 27 documents should be sealed. It strikes the Court, however, that these documents qualify 28 as public records. Such documents are presumptively open to the public with a “strong || policy favoring open disclosure and access” to them. Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Collins, 2|| 175 Ariz. 11, 14 , 852 P.2d 11°94, 1198 (1993). “Ifa 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, 5 || confidentiality, or the best interests of the state outweigh the policy in favor of disclosure.” 6|| Griffis vy. 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 8 || 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. 10 The Defendants make no argument that such documents are not public records. 11 || 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 13 || 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 15 || personally sensitive to meet the “good cause” standard which is applicable in this particular 16 || instance. 17 However, the records of Captain Morrison, who was deemed ineligible to replace 18 || 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. 20 || 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 22 || that were included in the correspondence with the Monitor relating to Captain Morrison. 23 || With the approval of Plaintiffs as to those redactions, the redacted documents should be 24 || filed and available to the public. 25 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. G. Murray Snow 28 Senior United States District Judge _2-