Darrow v. WKRP Management, LLC et al

Filing 133

ORDER : re: 129 MOTION to Seal filed by Robert Darrow. I will allow the defendants to and including April 28, 2011, within which to file a motion to seal, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/14/11. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01613-CMA-BNB
ROBERT DARROW, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff,
v.
WKRP MANAGEMENT, LLC,
WKRP COLORADO PP, LLC,
WKRP COLORADO, LLC, and
WKRP HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to File Confidential Exhibits Under Seal
[Doc. # 129, filed 4/4/2011] (the “Motion to Seal”).
The Motion to Seal is based on the fact that “[s]ome of the documents filed as exhibits to
the Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification have been designated by
Defendants as confidential within the meaning of the Protective Order entered by the Court on
December 29, 2009.” Motion to Seal [Doc. # 129] at ¶1. Local rule of practice 7.2B,
D.C.COLO.LCivR, is applicable in circumstances like these and provides:
A stipulated protective order or a confidentiality agreement
executed by the parties, standing alone, will not suffice for sealing
a paper or closing a court proceeding to the public, will not
substitute for the showing required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C,
and will not be binding on the court. Any document that a party
asserts should not be part of the public record pursuant to a
protective order or a confidentiality agreement shall be filed as a
sealed document. The document shall be sealed for 14 days. If no

motion to seal is filed within 14 days, the document shall be
automatically unsealed.
The plaintiff relies only on the existence of a protective order and the defendants’
designation of the documents as confidential in support of the Motion to Seal, which are
inadequate grounds under the local rule to justify such relief. The plaintiff offers no argument in
support of sealing which would satisfy the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C, and appears
not to support an order sealing. Consequently, the plaintiff should have filed the exhibits as
sealed documents, without a motion to seal, and left it to the defendants to file a motion to seal if
they believed it appropriate.
I will allow the defendants to and including April 28, 2011, within which to file a motion
to seal that meets the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C. If such a motion is timely filed,
the exhibits [Doc. # 128] will remain sealed pending a ruling on that motion. If no such motion
is filed, the exhibits [Doc. # 128] shall be unsealed and deemed a part of the public record.
SO ORDERED.
Dated April 14, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2