Evanston Insurance Company v. Aminokit Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 60

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 03/25/16 GRANTING 58 Motion to Redact the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of the Amended Complaint, redacting only the amount of the settlement, on or before March 29, 2016. The Clerk of Court shall restrict [#46] under a Level 1 restriction.(nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02665-RM-NYW
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMINOKIT LABORATORIES, INC.,
TAMEA RAE SISCO, and
JONATHAN LEE, M.D.,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the court on Defendants Aminokit Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a
Treatment Centers, XL and Tamea Rae Sisco’s Unopposed Motion to Redact the Amended
Complaint (the “Motion to Redact”). [#58, filed Mar. 24, 2016]. The Motion to Redact is before
this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated February 12, 2016 [#26] and
the Memorandum dated March 24, 2016 [#59].
There is a common-law right of access to judicial records, premised on the recognition
that public monitoring of the courts fosters important values such as respect for our judicial
system. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); In re Providence Journal
Co., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002). Judges have a responsibility to avoid secrecy in court
proceedings because “secret court proceedings are anathema to a free society.” M.M. v. Zavaras,
939 F. Supp. 799, 801 (D. Colo. 1996). There is a presumption that documents essential to the
judicial process are to be available to the public, but access to them may be restricted when the
public's right of access is outweighed by interests which favor nondisclosure. See United States
v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 811 (10th Cir. 1997).
These principles are reflected in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. Local Rule 7.2(c) is quite clear
that a party seeking to restrict access must make a multi-part showing. It must: (1) identify the
specific document for which restriction is sought; (2) identify the interest to be protected and the
reasons why that interest outweighs the presumption of public access; (3) identify a clear injury
that would result if access is not restricted; and (4) explain why alternatives to restricted

access—such as redaction, summarization, stipulation, or partial restriction—are not adequate.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(b)(1)–(4).
Defendants request that the Amended Complaint [#46] be redacted to protect the
confidentiality of the dollar amount of settlement of an underlying case to which the claims in
this case pertain. Defendants represent that the term of settlement of the underlying case is
confidential, and that there is potential for harm to the business and reputation of Defendants if
this information is not redacted.
The court finds that Defendants have made the requisite showing under the applicable
legal standard to establish that the settlement amount of the underlying case should be redacted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)
Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Redact the Amended Complaint [#58] is
GRANTED;
(2)
Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of the Amended Complaint, redacting only
the amount of the settlement, on or before March 29, 2016;
(3)

The Clerk of Court shall restrict [#46] under a Level 1 restriction.

(4)
Nothing in this Minute Order shall affect Plaintiff’s service obligations pertaining
to the Amended Complaint.

DATED: March 25, 2016