Opinion
CV-22-00300-PHX-ROS
01-18-2023
Jessica Fidler, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver Senior United States District Judge.
This Order resolves a motion to stay, a motion to seal, and a motion for extension of time.
I. Motion to Stay
Plaintiff Jessica Fidler, on behalf of Plaintiff E.F., seeks “to stay these proceedings for 90 days to allow Plaintiff E.F. to serve an amended [notice of claim] on” various state defendants. (Doc. 126 at 2). If granted a stay, E.F. plans to serve an amended notice of claim, allow the response time to run, and if no settlement is reached, amend his complaint in this case to include various state-law claims. According to E.F., if a stay is not granted, he will have to withdraw from the present suit, complete the notice of claim process, and then re-file his “state and federal claims in a separate federal court action.” (Doc. 126 at 5). E.F. does not explain why he will be required to pursue this convoluted process if his request for a stay is denied.
Defendants argue there is no need for a stay. Defendants focus on their belief that E.F.'s state-law claims have already been resolved in that they were dismissed based on the improper notice of claim E.F. previously attempted to serve. Thus, Defendants believe any attempt to amend the complaint after E.F. served another notice of claim would be futile.
At present, there is no basis to stay this case. This does not preclude E.F. from pursuing whatever course of action he believes appropriate. Thus, if E.F. wishes to prepare and serve another notice of claim, he is free to do so. If, after service of a new notice of claim, E.F. wishes to attempt to amend the complaint in this case to include state-law claims, he must file the appropriate motion and make the requisite showings, including that he was diligent. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting in context of seeking amendment to scheduling order “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief').
II. Motion to Seal
When responding to the amended complaint, Defendant Kaplan-Siekman filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits A and B to her Motion to Dismiss Under Seal (Doc. 144). That motion argues “A.R.S. § 8-807(U) and Arizona Rule of Juvenile Procedure 313(a) require” the exhibits be filed under seal. The provisions of Arizona law regarding confidentiality may not apply in federal litigation. Moreover, the lodged exhibits have been redacted to remove E.F.'s name. Those redactions may eliminate the need to seal the exhibits. The proper filing of this type of document may recur in this case. Therefore, the parties will be required to confer and file a statement setting forth their positions on two issues. First, whether Arizona's various confidentiality laws or rules govern in federal court. And second, whether redactions are sufficient to allow for documents, such as those lodged by Kaplan-Siekman, to be filed on the public docket.
III. Motion for Extension of Time
The parties have stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by some of the defendants on January 4, 2023. Other defendants filed motions to dismiss on January 10, 2023. (Doc. 143, 143, 147). To avoid additional requests for extension of time, the Court will set a single deadline for all responses.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Stay (Doc. 126) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Leave to File Exhibits A and B to her Motion to Dismiss Under Seal (Doc. 144) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than January 24, 2023, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the filing of juvenile records as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 148) is GRANTED to the extent the response to Doc. 140, as well as the responses to Doc. 143, 146, and 147 shall be filed no later than January 31, 2023.