Weitz Company, LLC, The et al v. Capitol Peak Lodge Condominium Association, Inc.

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Unopposed Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint Under Restricted Access Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/29/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01179-REB-MJW
THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company,
BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC., an Ohio corporation,
LAFARGE WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
BASE VILLAGE OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAPITOL PEAK LODGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado nonprofit
corporation,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to file
Amended Complaint Under Restricted Access Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2
(Docket No. 6) is GRANTED for the following reasons. Plaintiffs may file their Amended
Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and other attachments to the Amended Complaint
with the court under Level 1 Restricted Access.
In this case, the Settling Parties seek to file an Amended Complaint under Level
1 Restricted Access, consistent with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, that attaches the
confidential Settlement Agreement and other attachments to the Amended Complaint
which discloses the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement as well as
negotiations culminating in the Settlement Agreement. See other attachments to the
Amended Complaint. Filing the Amended Complaint under restricted access Level 1
serves the interests of maintaining the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement and
upholds the contractual agreement between the parties to maintain the confidentiality of
the Settlement Agreement. The public interest to be served in this action is the
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, and such public interest can be fulfilled
without resorting to disclosing confidential settlement information or violating the
confidentiality provision of the Settlement Agreement. There is no public interest
counseling in favor of disclosure in light of the strong confidentiality provision set forth in
the Settlement Agreement. If access is not restricted at Level 1 to the Amended
Complaint, Settlement Agreement and to the attachments to the Amended Complaint,
then the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement would be breached. Such

disclosure would be in contravention to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
would have a chilling effect on actions to enforce settlement agreements. In addition,
such disclosure would eviscerate the confidentiality provision to which the parties
agreed to in the Settlement Agreement. In this case and under these facts, there is no
other viable alternative other than submitting the Amended Complaint, Settlement
Agreement and other attachments to the Amended Complaint under Level 1 Restricted
Access. The Amended Complaint, Settlement Agreement and other attachments to the
Amendment Complaint are intertwined and connected. I note that this action concerns
a dispute over the enforceability of a Settlement Agreement approved by counsel for
both the Association and the Settling Parties. The only way to resolve this dispute is to
have full disclosure - to the Court and amongst the parties - of the Settlement
Agreement and its terms, conditions, and preceding negotiations. In this case, I find
that no alternative remedies, such as redaction or partial disclosure, will suffice.
Accordingly, the subject motion (Docket No. 6) should be granted at a Level 1
Restricted Access.
Date: May 29, 2013