Muhaymin v. Phoenix, City of ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mussalina Muhaymin, et al., No. CV-17-04565-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiffs, AMENDED ORDER1 11 v. 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are three motions to intervene for the limited purpose of moving 17 to unseal judicial records. (Docs. 357, 358, 363.) These motions were filed by Muslim 18 Advocates, the Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney, respectively (collectively 19 “Proposed Intervenors”). Each motion contains two requests: (1) for permission to 20 intervene in this matter and (2) for the Court to unseal judicial records. The Court will 21 grant the first request in full and grant the second request in part. 22 I. Permissive Intervention 23 “Nonparties seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking 24 permissive intervention[.]” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court—N. Dist. (San 25 Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) governs 26 permissive intervention and provides, in relevant part, that “on timely motion, the court 27 may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main 28 1 Amending the Court’s Order (Doc. 375) to correct a typo on page 11, line 23. Reference to Doc. 144-1 remaining under seal should have been Doc. 114-1. 1 action a common question of law or fact.” Thus, “[p]ermissive intervention to litigate a 2 claim on the merits under Rule 24(b) requires (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; 3 (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant’s 4 claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 5 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). But when permissive intervention is 6 sought only for the limited purpose of moving to unseal judicial records—rather than to 7 litigate claim on the merits—the first and third elements do not apply. Id. at 473-74. 8 Instead, the Court’s discretion is guided by the timeliness of the motion and “whether the 9 intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). 11 Defendants oppose the Proposed Intervenors’ motions to intervene, arguing that 12 Muslim Advocates and Stickney lack “standing” to intervene because they do not have a 13 sufficient interest in this litigation, that all Proposed Intervenors waited too long to 14 intervene, and that intervention at this time would unduly prejudice the existing parties by 15 diverting resources away from trial preparation. (Docs. 364, 365, 371.) 16 The Court rejects the first argument; as already noted, a non-party moving to 17 intervene solely for the purpose of accessing records need not show a nexus of fact or law 18 with the main action. Beckman, 966 F.2d at 474. Moreover, the public has a common law 19 right to access court records. San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1100. As members of 20 the public, all Proposed Intervenors have “standing,” to use Defendants’ chosen term, to 21 seek such access. 22 The Court also finds all three motions timely. Here, the motions to intervene were 23 filed less than two years after the Court first began sealing documents in this case (Doc. 24 99), and mere weeks after the Court sealed its order on Defendants’ summary judgment 25 motion (Doc. 352), which, together with the summary judgment briefing, are the highest 26 priority items to which the Proposed Intervenors seek access. (Doc. 358 at 6.) “[D]elays 27 measured in years have been tolerated where an intervenor is pressing the public’s right of 28 access to judicial records.” San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1101. 1 Lastly, the Court does not find Defendants’ arguments concerning prejudice to be 2 persuasive. The mere fact that Defendants will need to explain why the relevant records 3 should remain sealed is not, itself, unduly prejudicial. It is, after all, their burden to 4 establish that either good cause or compelling reasons justify curtailing the public’s right 5 to access judicial records. Moreover, the Court recently rescheduled the trial in this matter 6 to begin on April 25, 2022. (Doc. 359.) This schedule leaves plenty of time to adjudicate 7 the merits of the Proposed Intervenors’ motions to unseal without adversely impacting the 8 parties’ trial preparations. 9 For these reasons, all three Proposed Intervenors will be granted permission to 10 intervene for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal records in this case. 11 II. Propriety of Sealing Judicial Records 12 The public has a right to access judicial records. San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d 13 at 1101. The Court therefore begins “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 14 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A 15 party seeking to overcome this presumption and file a judicial record under seal generally 16 must provide a compelling reason for doing so. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 17 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Examples of compelling reasons “include when a 18 court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, to circulate 19 libelous statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 20 competitive standing.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). A movant’s reason 21 for seeking to seal a judicial record must be supported by an articulable factual basis, rather 22 than “hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1096-97 (internal quotations and citation omitted). 23 The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to this general rule “for sealed 24 materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case.” Id. at 1097. 25 A party seeking to seal such materials “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ 26 standard.” Id. Although earlier decisions from the Ninth Circuit sometimes used the words 27 “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” to describe the dividing line between those records 28 governed by the compelling reasons standard and those governed by the good cause 1 standard, the Ninth Circuit has since clarified that “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the motion 2 at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1099. 3 Sometimes non-dispositive motions are unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits 4 of a case; other times they “are strongly correlative to the merits of a case.” Id. The 5 exception to the ordinary compelling reasons standard applies only to judicial records that 6 are unrelated or merely tangentially related to the merits of a case. Sealing a record that is 7 more than tangentially related to the merits of a case requires a compelling justification. 8 Using this framework, the Court will address each sealed docket entry. 9 Docket Entry 99, filed under seal on November 20, 2019, is a Notice of Deposition 10 of a minor, A.M., filed by Defendants. This record was sealed because it contains the 11 minor’s full name in violation Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, which requires such information to be 12 redacted. (Docs. 299, 300.) When confronted with such non-compliant filings, it is the 13 undersigned’s practice to seal the document containing the private information and to order 14 the filing party to publicly file a version of the document that redacts the private 15 information. In this case, it appears that the Court ordered the non-compliant filing to be 16 sealed, but did not order that a publicly available, redacted version be filed. Accordingly, 17 Docket Entry 99 will remain sealed, but Defendants will be required to publicly file a 18 version of the document that complies with Rule 5.2. 19 Docket Entry 114-1, filed under seal on February 18, 2020, consists of Exhibits A- 20 J to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s motion to extend the expert disclosure deadline. 21 These exhibits were filed under seal because they contain private information that should 22 have been redacted per Rule 5.2. (Doc. 129, 131.) Docket Entry 114-1 will remain sealed, 23 and there is no need for Defendants to publicly file redacted versions because redacted 24 versions are already available on the public docket at Docket Entry 129-1. 25 Docket Entry 155, filed under seal on March 27, 2020, consists of Exhibits A and B 26 to Defendants’ Memorandum Re: Confidential Designation of Deposition Transcripts and 27 Videotapes. These filings are only tangentially related to the merits of the case. These 28 exhibits were sealed because they are settlement-related communications. (Doc. 115, 154.) 1 Courts have recognized “a compelling need to protect settlement offers.” See Huang v. 2 Behpour, No. 11-cv-00456-SOM, 2012 WL 3201952, at *1 (D.Haw. Aug. 2, 2012); Hunt 3 v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 13-cv-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 4 Sep. 14, 2015). Docket Entry 155 will remain sealed. 5 Docket Entry 157, filed under seal on March 27, 2020, consists of Exhibits A and B 6 to Defendants’ Notice of Petition to Appoint Legal Representative on Behalf of Minor 7 Child Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-1408(A) and Motion to Stay Proceedings Until Legal 8 Representative is Appointed for Minor Child. In particular, these exhibits are records from 9 the Maricopa County Superior Court regarding the Petition for Appointment of Legal 10 Representative on Behalf of a Minor Child Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-1408(A). These 11 records were sealed because they contain “private information pertaining to decedent’s 12 minor daughter[.]” (Doc. 134, 156.) These records are only tangentially related to the 13 merits of this case. Indeed, the underlying motion to which they correspond was 14 subsequently withdrawn. (Doc. 149, 151.) Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates 15 that these records were sealed in state court, and if they are matters of public record in state 16 court then there appears to be no reason to seal them here. Moreover, the only private 17 information the Court can identify in these exhibits that is not already referenced in the 18 publicly available motion at Docket Entry 133 appears to be the minor’s full name. 19 Accordingly, although Docket Entry 157 will remain sealed, Defendants are directed to 20 publicly file versions of these documents that redact private information covered by Rule 21 5.2. 22 Docket Entry 162, filed under seal on March 31, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’ 23 Notice of Pending Stipulated Motion for Appointment of Statutory Representative for 24 Minor. The Exhibit is a copy of a stipulated motion filed in Maricopa County Superior 25 Court. It was filed under seal because it “contains private and sensitive information 26 pertaining to decedent’s minor daughter[.]” (Docs. 159, 161.) This record is only 27 tangentially related to the merits of this case. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates 28 that this record was sealed in state court, and if it is a matter of public record in state court 1 then there appears to be no reason to seal it here. Moreover, the only private information 2 referenced in this document that is not already referenced in the publicly available Notice 3 at Docket Entry 158 appears to be the minor’s full name. Accordingly, although Docket 4 Entry 162 will remain sealed, Defendants are directed to publicly file a version of this 5 document that redacts private information covered by Rule 5.2. 6 Docket Entry 169, filed under seal on April 15, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’ 7 Notice re: Order Appointing Statutory Representative for Minor. It was filed under seal 8 because it “contains private and sensitive information pertaining to decedent’s minor 9 daughter[.]” (Docs. 166, 168.) This record is only tangentially related to the merits of this 10 case. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates that this record was sealed in state court, 11 and if it is a matter of public record in state court then there appears to be no reason to seal 12 it here. Moreover, the only private information in the exhibit that is not already publicly 13 available is the minor’s full name. Accordingly, although Docket Entry 169 will remain 14 sealed, Defendants are ordered to publicly file a version of this record that redacts any 15 private information covered by Rule 5.2. 16 Docket Entry 186, filed under seal on June 2, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’ 17 Supplement to Memorandum Re: Confidential Designation of Deposition Transcripts and 18 Videotapes and Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Order to Cease/Desist and 19 Remove Public Postings. This filing is only tangentially related to the merits of this case. 20 This record was sealed because it is a settlement-related communication. (Docs. 180, 185.) 21 Accordingly, Docket Entry 186 will remain under seal. 22 Docket Entry 192, filed under seal on June 10, 2020, is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 23 to File Second Amended Complaint. Docket Entry 197, filed under seal on June 24, 2020, 24 is Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 25 Complaint. And Docket Entry 211, filed under seal on August 25, 2020, is Plaintiff’s reply 26 in support of her Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. In the Court’s 27 judgment, a motion seeking leave to amend a complaint is more than merely tangentially 28 related to the merits of the case, and therefore compelling reasons are required before 1 sealing such records. These documents were sealed for two reasons: (1) they contain and/or 2 reference information designated as confidential by Defendants pursuant to the parties’ 3 protective order and (2) Defendants voiced concerns that Plaintiff’s counsel intended to 4 use this material to spread misinformation about and incite public disapproval of 5 Defendants. (Doc. 191, 196, 197.) The Court will address each reason in turn. 6 First, a party’s designation of a document as confidential pursuant to a protective 7 order is not, without more, a compelling reason or good cause for sealing that document 8 once it is used to support a submission with the Court. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 9 F.3d at 1103 (“Such blanket orders are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as 10 the party resisting disclosure generally has not made a particularized showing of good 11 cause with respect to any individual document.”); Marsteller v. MD Helicopter Inc., No. 12 CV-14-01788-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 5479927, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2017) (“Ordinarily 13 . . . a party’s designation of a document as confidential is not per se good cause.”). Once 14 a party decides to use a document to support a filing with the Court, the party asserting 15 confidentiality must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the 16 nature of the filing) for sealing the record and cannot merely rely on the fact that the party 17 subjectively believes the document is confidential and has chosen to designate it as such. 18 Indeed, paragraph 17 of the parties’ protective order reflects this rule: 19 In the event a party wishes to use any Confidential Information in any papers filed in this action, that Party shall make a motion 20 to file such papers under seal with the Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6, that sets forth the articulated bases 21 with specific factual findings demonstrating the compelling reasons for sealing materials attached to dispositive motions 22 and/or the good cause for sealing other attached or used materials. 23 24 (Doc. 72 at 7.) So, too, do this District’s Local Rules of Practice. See LRCiv. 5.6(b), (d). 25 And even if good cause or compelling reasons justify shielding some information in an 26 exhibit or motion from public view, it is inappropriate to shield the entire document. 27 Instead, it is the undersigned’s practice to order that an appropriately redacted version of 28 the document be publicly filed. Thus, the bare assertion that these filings contain and/or 1 reference material designated by Defendants as confidential pursuant to the protective 2 order is inadequate to justify sealing the filings. 3 Second, there are rules governing extrajudicial statements made by lawyers. See 4 Ariz. R. Prof. Conduct E.R. 3.6; LRCiv. 83.8. If the Court finds that an attorney has 5 violated these rules, the Court may issue appropriate sanctions. But such sanctions are 6 meant to address the misconduct and deter future violations. Interested members of the 7 public should not be penalized for an attorney’s misconduct by having their rights to access 8 judicial record curtailed. Thus, Defendants’ concerns about potentially inappropriate 9 extrajudicial communications by Plaintiff’s counsel is not, standing alone, a sufficient 10 reason to seal judicial records. For these reasons, Docket Entries 192, 197, and 211 will 11 be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality 12 publicly submits proposed redacted versions and shows compelling reasons for the 13 proposed redactions. 14 Docket Entry 235, filed under seal on October 5, 2020, is Exhibit A to Defendants’ 15 Notice of Pending Stipulated Motion for Production of Certain Documents Pursuant to 16 A.R.S. § 8-807(K). It was filed under seal because it contains the full name of a minor in 17 violation of Rule 5.2. (Doc. 230, 234.) This document will remain sealed, but Defendants 18 are required to publicly file a version of the document that complies with Rule 5.2. 19 Docket Entry 237, filed under seal on October 8, 2020, is Defendant’s Expedited 20 Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions. Docket Entry 251, filed under seal 21 on January 8, 2021, is Defendants’ reply brief in connection with this motion. These filings 22 are only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Docket Entry 237 was filed under 23 seal because it contains and/or references information designated by Defendants as 24 confidential pursuant to the protective order. (Docs. 236, 238.) This, alone, is not good 25 cause. Docket Entry 237 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, 26 Defendants publicly submit a proposed redacted version and show good cause for the 27 proposed redactions. Docket Entry 251 was filed under seal because it contains and/or 28 references information designated by Defendants as confidential and because it contains or 1 references settlement-related communications. (Docs. 250, 290.) The settlement-related 2 communications are properly sealed, but the remainder is not. Accordingly, Docket Entry 3 251-4 will remain sealed, but the remainder of Docket Entry 251 will be unsealed on 4 December 1, 2021 unless, before then, Defendants publicly submit a proposed redacted 5 version and show good cause for the proposed redactions. 6 Docket Entry 263, filed under seal on November 23, 2020, is an order setting a 7 telephonic oral argument on Defendant’s Expedited Motion for Protective Order and 8 Motion for Sanctions. No party moved to seal this document, nothing on the docket 9 explains why this order is sealed, and upon review the Court finds that nothing in the order 10 needs to be sealed. Docket Entry 263 is unsealed. 11 Docket Entry 265, filed under seal on December 2, 2020, is the minute entry from 12 the oral argument on Defendant’s Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Motion for 13 Sanctions. Nothing on the docket explains why this minute entry is sealed, and the Court 14 sees nothing in the minute entry that needs to be sealed. Docket Entry 265 is unsealed. 15 Docket Entry 271, filed under seal on December 11, 2020, is the Court’s order on 16 Defendants’ Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions. This order 17 is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Nothing on the docket explains why 18 this order is sealed, but it appears that it was sealed because it references information 19 designated as confidential by Defendant. But the mere fact that a party designates 20 something as confidential is not, by itself, good cause. Docket Entry 271 will be unsealed 21 on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows good 22 cause for sealing or redacting it. 23 Docket Entries 273, 274, and 275, filed under seal on January 8, 2021, are 24 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, separate statement of facts, and exhibits. 25 These filings are central to the merits of the case. They were sealed because they contain 26 and/or reference information designated as confidential by Defendants. (Doc. 272, 287.) 27 But this, alone, is not a compelling reason to seal a dispositive motion. Docket Entries 28 273, 274, and 275 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, Defendants 1 publicly submit proposed redacted versions and show compelling reasons for the proposed 2 redactions. 3 Docket Entries 291 and 292, filed under seal on February 1, 2021, are Plaintiff’s 4 response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, separate statement 5 of facts, and exhibits. These documents were filed under seal because they contain and/or 6 reference information designated as confidential by Defendants. (Doc. 287.) This, alone, 7 is not a compelling reason. Docket Entries 291 and 292 will be unsealed on December 1, 8 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality submits proposed redacted 9 versions and shows compelling reasons for the proposed redactions. 10 Docket Entry 298, filed under seal on March 2, 2021, is Defendants’ reply in 11 connection with their summary judgment motion. This record was sealed for the same 12 reason the motion and response briefing was sealed. Docket Entry 298 will be unsealed on 13 December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality publicly submits 14 a proposed redacted version and shows compelling reasons for the proposed redactions. 15 Docket Entries 313, 315, 316, 317, 319, 326, 327, 328, 337, 338, 339, and 346 16 comprise the briefing on four separate motions to exclude expert testimony. In the Court’s 17 judgment, these motions are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and, 18 therefore, require compelling reasons for being sealed. These documents were sealed 19 because they contain and/or reference information designated by the parties as confidential 20 pursuant to the protective order. (Docs. 302, 305, 312, 320, 325, 343, 345.) These reasons 21 are insufficient. Docket Entries 313, 315, 316, 317, 319, 326, 327, 328, 337, 338, 339, and 22 346 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting 23 confidentiality publicly submits proposed redacted versions and shows compelling reasons 24 for the proposed redactions. 25 Docket Entry 332 is a sealed minute entry for a May 4, 2021 hearing. This minute 26 entry was sealed because the underlying hearing was sealed, and the underlying hearing 27 was sealed because it concerned pleadings that had been sealed. (Doc. 324.) Having 28 1 reviewed the minute entry, the Court concludes that it contains nothing that needs to be 2 sealed. Docket Entry 332 is unsealed. 3 Docket Entry 335, filed under seal on May 4, 2021, is a motion for sanctions filed 4 by Defendants. This motion is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. It was 5 sealed because it contains and/or references documents that were designated as confidential 6 by Defendants pursuant to the protective order. (Doc. 329, 334.) This alone is not good 7 cause. Docket Entry 335 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the 8 party asserting confidentiality publicly submits a proposed redacted version and shows 9 good cause for the proposed redactions. 10 Docket Entry 352 is the Court’s order on Defendants’ motion for summary 11 judgment. This order is central to the merits of the case. It was filed under seal because 12 the underlying summary judgment briefing was sealed. The Court does not find it 13 appropriate to seal a dispositive order absent a truly compelling justification. Docket Entry 14 352 will be unsealed on December 1, 2021 unless, before then, any party asserting 15 confidentially shows compelling reasons for sealing or redacting it. 16 IT IS ORDERED that the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the Associated 17 Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357, 358, 363) are GRANTED to the extent they seek 18 permission to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of moving to unseal judicial 19 records. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motions filed by Muslim Advocates, the 21 Associated Press, and Lei Ann Stickney (Docs. 357, 358, 363) are GRANTED IN PART 22 and DENIED IN PART to the extent they seek to unseal court records as follows: 23 1. The following docket entries will remain under seal: Doc. 99, Doc. 114-1, Doc. 24 155, Doc. 157, Doc. 162, Doc. 169, Doc. 186, Doc. 235, Doc. 251-4. 25 2. By no later than December 1, 2021, the initially filing party shall publicly file 26 redacted versions of the following docket entries in a manner that complies with 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2: Doc. 99, Doc. 157, Doc. 162, Doc. 169, 28 Doc. 235. 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to immediately unseal the following: Doc. 2 263, Doc. 265, Doc. 332. 3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Doc. 271 on December 1, 2021 4 unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows good cause for 5 sealing or redacting it. 6 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the following docket entries on 7 December 1, 2021 unless, before then, the party asserting confidentiality 8 publicly submits a proposed redacted version and shows either good cause or 9 compelling reasons (depending on the nature of the filing) for the proposed 10 redactions: Doc. 192, Doc. 197, Doc. 211, Doc. 237, Doc. 251 (except Doc 251- 11 4, which will remain sealed), Doc. 273, Doc. 274, Doc. 275, Doc. 291, Doc. 292, 12 Doc. 298, Doc. 313, Doc. 315, Doc. 316, Doc. 317, Doc. 319, Doc. 326, Doc. 13 327, Doc. 328, Doc. 335, Doc. 337, Doc. 338, Doc. 339, Doc. 346. 14 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Doc. 352 on December 1, 2021 15 unless, before then, any party asserting confidentiality shows compelling 16 reasons for sealing or redacting it. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, all parties should take special 18 care to comply with Rule 5.2 to avoid the needless sealing of documents that easily could 19 and should have been redacted in the first place. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, any party moving to seal a 21 document must show either good cause or compelling reasons (depending on the nature of 22 the filing) for such relief. The mere fact that a party has designated information as 23 confidential is not, without more, good cause or a compelling reason. Furthermore, 24 documents will not be sealed in their entirety if good cause or compelling reasons justify 25 sealing only discrete portions. In such circumstances, publicly available redacted versions 26 of the relevant documents will be required. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Motion Regarding □□ Sealed Pleadings (Doc. 374) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties should 3|| confer and, if appropriate, may submit a revised stipulation that accounts of the □□ requirements of this order. 5 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2021. 6 7 : Ayes le 10 Upited States Dictric Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 13-