Muhaymin v. Phoenix, City of et al
| Mussalina Muhaymin |
| Phoenix, City of, Oswald Grenier, Kevin McGowan, Jason Hobe, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbinger, James Clark, Dennis Lerous, Ryan Nielson, Steven Wong, Unknown Parties and Antonio Tarango |
| 2:2017cv04565 |
| December 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Steven P Logan |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
376
AMENDED ORDER ORDER that the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED to the extent they seek permission to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of moving to u nseal judicial records. FURTHER ORDERED the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent they seek to unseal court records as follows (see order for details/deadlines). FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, all parties should take special care to comply with Rule 5.2 to avoid the needless sealing of documents that easily could and should have been redacted in the first place. FURTH ER ORDERED that, going forward, any party moving to seal a document must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the nature of the filing) for such relief. The mere fact that a party has designated information as confidential is no t, without more, good cause or a compelling reason. Furthermore, documents will not be sealed in their entirety if good cause or compelling reasons justify sealing only discrete portions. In such circumstances, publicly available redacted versions of the relevant documents will be required. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Motion Regarding Sealed Pleadings (Doc. 374 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties should confer and, if appropriate, may submit a revised stipulation that accounts of the requirements of this order. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/3/21. (MAP)
|
|
Filing
375
*AMENDED By Doc. 376 *ORDER that the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED to the extent they seek permission to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of movi ng to unseal judicial records. FURTHER ORDERED the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357 , 358 , 363 ) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent they seek to unseal court records as fol lows (see order for details/deadlines). FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, all parties should take special care to comply with Rule 5.2 to avoid the needless sealing of documents that easily could and should have been redacted in the first place. F URTHER ORDERED that, going forward, any party moving to seal a document must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the nature of the filing) for such relief. The mere fact that a party has designated information as confidential i s not, without more, good cause or a compelling reason. Furthermore, documents will not be sealed in their entirety if good cause or compelling reasons justify sealing only discrete portions. In such circumstances, publicly available redacted version s of the relevant documents will be required. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Motion Regarding Sealed Pleadings (Doc. 374 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties should confer and, if appropriate, may submit a revised stipulation that accounts of the requirements of this order. Signed by Judge Douglas L. Rayes on 11/2/21. (NKS) *Modified on 11/3/2021 (MAP).
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER: Granting Defendants motion to dismiss in partCounts IV, V, VI and XV are dismissed. Denying Defendants motion to dismiss as to all remaining counts. Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 2/20/2019. (TCA)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
