Henn et al v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Filing
320
ORDER denying 316 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Restrict. The Clerk shall unrestrict ECF No. 317, 317-1, 317-2, and 317-3. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 4/9/2019. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03077-RM-KLM
(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 13-cv-01217-RM-KLM)
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s
Unopposed Motion for Restricted Access Regarding Fidelity’s Motion for Appellate Attorneys’
Fees and Costs and its Supporting Exhibits (“Motion”) (ECF No. 316). Specifically, Plaintiff
requests a Level 1 restriction on the following: (1) its motion for appellate attorney’s fees (ECF
No. 317); (2) its affidavit in support of such fees; and (3) the redacted billing statements. Plaintiff
asserts such documents contain confidential information such as the services performed,
payments made to counsel, negotiated hourly rates, litigation tactics, and communications
protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff asserts that
disclosure of this information would injure it in future lawsuits. Finally, Plaintiff contends no
alternative to restriction is practical. The Court disagrees.
The Court finds the motion contains no confidential information; the amount of fees and
costs sought by Plaintiff is not confidential. If that were the case, then every motion for fees
would be subject to restriction. The same holds true for Ms. Well’s affidavit filed in support of
the motion for fees. Plaintiff argues its hourly rates are negotiated through a private contract, but
the Court rejects this argument as surely all rates between an attorney and the client are
negotiated through a private contract. Finally, the Court finds the billing statements themselves
are subject to disclosure as they are redacted; what limited unredacted information that is
revealed fails to disclose any attorney-client communication, attorney work product, or
confidential information which would result in a clearly defined and serious injury. Contrary to
what Plaintiff summarily claims, a reviewer may not glean litigation strategy for future lawsuits
from the filings. See JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Cty. of Montrose, Colo.,
754 F.3d 824, 826-7 (10th Cir. 2014) (“To overcome this presumption against sealing, the party
seeking to seal records must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the
public of access to the records that inform our decision-making process.” (quotation marks and
citation omitted)); D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 (setting forth movant’s burden to show public access
should be denied). It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s Unopposed
Motion for Restricted Access Regarding Fidelity’s Motion for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs and its Supporting Exhibits (ECF No. 316) is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall unrestrict ECF No. 317, 317-1, 317-2, and
317-3.
DATED this 9th day of April, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?