From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farnell v. Zanon

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Dec 29, 2023
No. CV-23-02406-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Dec. 29, 2023)

Opinion

CV-23-02406-PHX-GMS

12-29-2023

Sarah Farnell, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Ashby Zanon, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

G. MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Sarah Farnell's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16), Motion to Strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Seal the Record (Doc. 21), and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counts II and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 22).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16) is DENIED. Plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard for a preliminary injunction. See Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)) (“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.'”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Seal the Record (Doc. 21) is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) applies to pleadings, not motions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (“The court may strike [] a pleading . . . .”) (emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiff does not establish the compelling reasons standard required by the Ninth Circuit to seal Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 20). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counts II and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 22) is NOTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AFFRIMING Defendants' stipulation as stated on the record to file a 30-day advance notice with this Court prior to publishing, distributing, or disseminating Plaintiff's nude or sexually explicit images.


Summaries of

Farnell v. Zanon

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Dec 29, 2023
No. CV-23-02406-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Dec. 29, 2023)
Case details for

Farnell v. Zanon

Case Details

Full title:Sarah Farnell, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Ashby Zanon, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Dec 29, 2023

Citations

No. CV-23-02406-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Dec. 29, 2023)