Hunter v. City and County of Denver et al

Filing 126

ORDER. With the exception of birth dates contained in Documents 53-12, 53-13, 55-12, 55-4 and 74-1, the motions to restrict are denied by Judge John L. Kane on 06/12/14. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02682-JLK
JAMAL HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipality,
DEPUTY GAYNEL RUMER, in his individual and official capacities,
DEPUTY EDWARD KELLER, in his individual and official capacities.
Defendants.

ORDER
Kane, J.
Defendant City and County of Denver has moved to maintain previously courtordered sealing (restricted access) to documents and court files and to restrict access to
inextricably intertwined investigation materials. With the exception of birth dates contained
in Documents 53-12, 53-13, 55-12, 55-4 and 74-1, the motion is denied. These birth dates
are ordered redacted in these documents in observance of the discretionary provisions of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 (a) (2). I find disclosure of these birth dates serves no
useful public purpose in advising the public so as to keep a watchful eye on the workings of
the court and public agencies and therefore the privacy interest in this limited circumstance
outweighs the need to have open judicial proceedings.
The remainder of the documents now under seal, however, should be made public.
This case involves serious and substantial allegations of governmental misconduct. Whether

such allegations are proved is beside the point. That such disclosure involves investigative
materials and information does not justify keeping the records and pleadings sealed. Having
reviewed these materials, I find there are considerable bases for public access that far
outweigh any reputed need to suppress access. The public interest in openness in judicial
proceedings is particularly prominent when other branches of government, whether state or
federal, are involved. I note especially that the names of individuals are already matters of
public record such as those of government employees and those who are incarcerated in
public institutions. The blanket sealing of documents and pleadings is not in the public
interest and no unnecessary interference with law enforcement activities that are not directly
relevant to the merits of the instant litigation is presented.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, Senior Judge
United States District Court