Mayo Clinic v. Doe

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

MAYO CLINIC, a foreign non-profit corporation d/b/a MAYO CLINIC
ALIX SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; KRYSTAL RENSZEL; DENISE DUPRAS;
and RYAN CHADHA, Petitioners,

v.

D. DOE, Respondent.

No. 1 CA-SA 25-0164
FILED 08-12-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2024-034143
The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED

COUNSEL

Husch Blackwell LLP, Phoenix
By Brendan A. Melander
Counsel for Petitioners

Taylor & Gomez, LLP, Phoenix
By Benjamin Taylor
Co-Counsel for Respondent

Bihn & McDaniel, P.L.C., Phoenix
By Martin A. Bihn
Co-Counsel for Respondent
Law Office of Michael Eskander, P.L.C., Mesa
By Michael S. Eskander
Co-Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This special action arises out of defamation and breach of
contract claims Respondent “D. Doe” brought against Petitioners Mayo
Clinic and some Mayo employees. Petitioners challenge the denial of their
motion to unseal the case and to vacate an order allowing Respondent to
proceed pseudonymously. Accepting special action jurisdiction, this court
grants relief and remands for further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On January 3, 2025, Respondent filed an ex parte “Motion for
Rule 5.4 ARCP Relief (Sealing Records),”1 asking the court to: (1) “seal the
entire case file to preserve [Respondent’s] anonymity;” (2) seal specific
pages of certain filed documents; and (3) recognize that Respondent’s
“identity must remain confidential” and “redact [Respondent’s] name from
the caption and allow him to proceed by pseudonym.” Along with the
motion, Respondent submitted a three-page proposed order reflecting the
relief requested. Granting the motion, on January 9, 2025, the court entered
an ex parte “Order Granting [Respondent] Rule 5.4 ARCP Relief,” using the
sealing order Respondent submitted. The terms of that sealing order are at
the core of this special action.

¶3 Stating it addresses “specific findings required by” Rule 5.4,
the sealing order “finds that sealing the entire case is a reasonable
restriction and necessary . . . [and] that no less restrictive alternative exists.”
Then, however, the sealing order directs the clerk of court to seal specific
portions of certain filed documents. The sealing order also “authoriz[es]
[Respondent] to proceed by pseudonym” and directs that Respondent’s
name in the caption be replaced “with pseudonym D. Doe.” The sealing

1 “Rule 5.4” is Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4 (“Sealing and Unsealing

Court Records”) discussed below.

2
 MAYO CLINIC, et al. v. DOE
Decision of the Court

order directed Respondent to “refile the complaint unsealed using a
pseudonym in place of [Respondent’s] name.”

¶4 Later in January 2025, Respondent filed a new complaint
using D. Doe as a pseudonym. In March 2025, Petitioners filed an answer
and a “Motion to Unseal Case and Revoke Order Permitting [Respondent]
to Proceed Pseudonymously.” On May 16, 2025, after full briefing, the court
denied Petitioners’ motion to unseal, stating “After careful consideration of
the record and all points and authorities, the Court is not persuaded that
the original ruling on [Respondent’s Rule] 5.4 Motion is incorrect.” In mid-
June 2025, Petitioners filed this special action challenging that denial. Along
with the petition, this court authorized and has considered Respondent’s
response and Petitioner’s reply and related filings. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act
14.

DISCUSSION

¶5 Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is a discretionary
decision. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 12(a). Here, Petitioners have no current
right to appeal, meaning any remedy by appeal is not “equally plain,
speedy, and adequate.” Id. Similarly, addressing the issues presented in the
Petition “will materially advance the efficient management of the case.”
Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act 12(b)(7). Accordingly, this court accepts special action
jurisdiction. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 12(a). The question then becomes
whether Petitioners are entitled to relief. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 4.

¶6 Petitioners argue the order denying their motion to unseal
failed to provide required reasons for that ruling, adding that the sealing
order should not have sealed the entire case, does not comply with Rule 5.4,
and should not have allowed using a pseudonym. Respondent counters
that the court provided adequate reasons for denying the motion to unseal,
that the sealing order did not seal the entire case but only certain filings or
portions of filings, that it complied with Rule 5.4, and that the reference in
Rule 5.4(c)(3)(B) to sealing “portions” of a document authorizes using a
pseudonym.

¶7 Rule 5.4(h), which governs Petitioners’ motion to unseal,
states that:

On motion by any person . . . , the court may
order that a document be unsealed based on the
standards of Rule 5.4(c)(2). The court’s order
must state the reasons for unsealing the

3
 MAYO CLINIC, et al. v. DOE
Decision of the Court

document or, if the order denies a motion to
unseal the document, the reasons for denying it.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(h). “Under Rule 5.4, the court is required to analyze the
same factors to unseal a document as it is to seal it.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety
v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 247 Ariz. 567, 573 ¶ 25 (App. 2019) (addressing
sealing of court filings containing trade secrets, which are not at issue here).
Rule 5.4(c)(2), in turn, states:

[A] court may order that a document may be
filed under seal only if it finds in a written order
that:
(A) an overriding interest exists that supports
filing the document under seal and overcomes
the right of public access to it;
(B) a substantial probability exists that the
person seeking to file the document under seal
(or another person) would be prejudiced if it is
not filed under seal;
(C) the proposed restriction on public access to
the document is no greater than necessary to
preserve the confidentiality of the information
subject to the overriding interest; and
(D) no reasonable, less restrictive alternative
exists to preserve the confidentiality of the
information subject to the overriding interest.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(2) (emphasis added). “Unless the court determines
that an entire category or type of document meets this rule’s requirements,
a court may not enter an order that gives advance authorization to file such
documents under seal.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(1). As applied, the sealing
order, which Respondent supplied, does not comport with Rule 5.4(c)(2).

¶8 Given the language in the sealing order sealing the entire file,
there would be no need to seal portions of specific filings or authorize
Respondent to proceed by pseudonym. But that is what the sealing order
does. Conversely, sealing portions of specific filings and allowing
Respondent to proceed by pseudonym would negate a finding that sealing
the entire file was required. That also would negate any finding that sealing
the entire file was required because “no reasonable, less restrictive
alternative exists to preserve the confidentiality of the information subject
to the overriding interest.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(2)(D). The sealing order
also does not include findings regarding “an entire category or type of

4
 MAYO CLINIC, et al. v. DOE
Decision of the Court

document” that would “give[] advance authorization” to make filings
under seal, further negating sealing the entire file. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(1).

¶9 Turning to the filing of certain documents or portions of
filings under seal, when discussing less restrictive alternatives,
Respondent’s motion to seal focused on either sealing the entire file or using
a pseudonym:

The only other potential less restrictive
alternative is a combination of Court
authorization for [Respondent] to proceed by
pseudonym, and a confidentiality order
precluding the parties from using
[Respondent’s] true name in court filed
documents, third party discovery and at trial.
[Respondent’s] preference is to seal the case file
in its entirety because that will eliminate the
possibility of accidental public disclosure of
confidential material in the court file.

Respondent’s motion to seal concluded by arguing that the “Court must
seal the entire case file to preserve [Respondent’s] anonymity,” but then
also asked that “the Court seal pages 2 through 9 of this motion and
attached Exhibits 1 and 2, . . . or redact [Respondent’s] name from the
caption and allow him to proceed by pseudonym.” (Emphasis added.) The
alternative request to proceed by pseudonym without sealing at least a
portion of the filings would seem to negate a finding that sealing filings or
portions of filings was required because “no reasonable, less restrictive
alternative exists to preserve the confidentiality of the information subject
to the overriding interest.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(2)(D).

¶10 Finally, as to the use of a pseudonym, Petitioners are correct
that Rule 5.4 does not expressly authorize that approach, while Respondent
is correct that Arizona cases have recognized using a pseudonym. See, e.g.,
Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313 (1998); Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 217 Ariz. 103 (App.
2007); accord Doe v. Arpaio, 214 Ariz. 237, 238 ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) (“The trial
court allowed plaintiff Jane Doe to proceed pseudonymously. We continue
that usage.”). According to Respondent, logic suggests the reference to
sealing “portions” of a document in Rule 5.4(c)(3)(B) contemplates
redactions, which would allow for proceeding under a pseudonym.
Petitioners argue that the sealing order “did not independently analyze the
pseudonym issue and incorporated it within the Rule 5.4 sealing analysis.”

5
 MAYO CLINIC, et al. v. DOE
Decision of the Court

The parties’ competing positions on using a pseudonym rely on federal
cases, even though the issue here is one of state procedure.

¶11 Case filings are presumptively open for public inspection. See
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 123(d). The party seeking to alter that presumption must
meet the Rule 5.4 burden for sealing, including that “no reasonable, less
restrictive alternative exists to preserve the confidentiality of the
information subject to the overriding interest” that supports filing a
document under seal. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.4(c)(2)(D). Any sealing order must
be narrowly tailored. See Saguaro Healing, LLC v. Superior Court, 255 Ariz.
505, 508 ¶ 12 (App. 2023) (vacating “overly broad” sealing order). Here, the
sealing order can be read as being inconsistent in (1) its scope and what is
(and is not) sealed; (2) whether what is sealed was done because “no
reasonable, less restrictive alternative exists to preserve the confidentiality
of the information subject to the overriding interest;” (3) whether any
sealing is appropriate and (4) the basis for using a pseudonym.

¶12 Given these issues, the order denying the motion to unseal is
vacated, the sealing order is vacated and this matter is remanded for further
consideration by the superior court of these issues to decide whether to
issue a revised sealing order in compliance with Rule 5.4.

CONCLUSION

¶13 Accepting special action jurisdiction, this court grants relief
by vacating the May 16, 2025 order denying the motion to unseal, vacating
the January 9, 2025 sealing order and remanding for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6