Turner v. Clean Energy Collective LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Record or Protect by Restricted Access. FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 36 the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 8/15/2017. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00595-RM-KMT
L. TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLEAN ENERGY COLLECTIVE, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed “Motion to Seal Record or
Protect by Restricted Access” requesting to seal this entire case file. Plaintiff’s request is made
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e),1 governing protective orders, but such an order is not at issue.
Regardless, Plaintiff fails to make the requisite showing for such an order, or that any sealing or
restriction of access to the file is warranted.
First, Plaintiff filed this action on March 6, 2017, and it has been publicly accessible
since that date. No motion to restrict has previously been filed by any party, as to any paper.
Next, Plaintiff summarily asserts there are privacy interests at stake but fails to identify such
interests or how such unidentified interests are implicated by background checks and the like. If
any paper has implicated a party’s privacy interest, that party should have sought relief upon the
filing of such paper. Third, to the extent any privacy interest under Rule 5.2(a) is claimed, Rule
5.2(h) provides that a party “waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) as to the person’s own
1

Plaintiff cites to Rule 5(e), but since the motion refers to a protective order, the Court assumes she meant Rule
5.2(e).

information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.” Fourth, the Court fails to see how,
under any circumstances in this case, filings such as an attorney’s entry of appearance and orders
granting motions for extensions or to reschedule matters, should be sealed or restricted. Fifth, to
the extent restriction is sought as to any specific document, compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.2 is required but has not been met. Finally, Plaintiff fails to show how any confidentiality
provision – between the parties – supports a sealing of this case. Or that sealing before this court
is warranted base on the provisions governing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In summary, D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 specifically recognizes, with limited exception, the
policy of this court that “the public shall have access to all documents filed with the court and all
court proceedings.” Restriction is the exception, not the rule. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Record or Protect by Restricted Access (ECF
No. 35) is DENIED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with
Prejudice (ECF No. 36) the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
DATED this 15th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2