Callahan v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas et al

Filing 279

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling plaintiff's 268 Consent Motion For Leave To File Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 6/28/2013. (mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PATRICK CALLAHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE
COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-2621-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Patrick Callahan brings suit against the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas
City, Kansas and multiple police officers for violation of constitutional and common law rights. For
discovery purposes only, the Court has consolidated this case with three other cases.1 See Order
(Doc. #26) filed March 7, 2012. In this case, plaintiffs in all four cases have filed a motion for
partial summary judgment. See Doc. #267 filed June 18, 2013. Because the case has been
consolidated only for purposes of discovery – and not for purposes of summary judgment – the

1

For discovery purposes only, the Court has consolidated the following cases:

Callahan v. Unified Gov. of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, Kan., et al., Case No.
11-2621-KHV-KMH;
Gambrill v. Unified Gov. of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, Kan., et al., Case No.
11-2699-KHV-KMH;
Pitman v. Unified Gov. of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, Kan., Case No.
12-2010-KHV-KMH; and
Hammons v. Unified Gov of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, Kan., Case No.
12-2028-KHV-KMH.
Order (Doc. #26) filed March 7, 2012.

motion is properly filed only as to Callahan, i.e. plaintiff in this case.2 This matter comes before the
Court on plaintiff’s Consent Motion For Leave To File Under Seal (Doc. #268) filed June 18, 2013.
For reasons stated below, the Court overrules plaintiff’s motion.
Legal Standards
Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Helm v. Kan., 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149
(10th Cir. 2007). This right derives from the public’s interest in understanding disputes that are
presented to a public forum for resolution and is intended to ensure that courts are fair and judges
are honest. Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980); Worford v. City
of Topeka, No. 03-2450-JWL-DJW, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2004). The public’s
right of access, however, is not absolute. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292. The Court therefore has discretion
to seal documents if competing interests outweigh the public’s right of access. Id.; United States
v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). In exercising its discretion, the Court weighs the
public’s interests, which it presumes are paramount, against those advanced by the parties. Helm,
656 F.3d at 1292; Dobbins, 616 F.2d at 461. The party seeking to overcome the presumption of
public access to the documents bears the burden of showing that some significant interest outweighs
the presumption. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. The Court should seal
documents based only on articulable facts known to the Court, and not based on unsupported
hypothesis or conjecture. Worford, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (citing Stapp v. Overnite Transp. Co.,
No. 96-2320-GTV, 1998 WL 229538, at *1 (D. Kan. April 10, 1998)).

2

If plaintiffs wish to file the same motion in all four cases, they may include a
combined caption which lists all four cases and file the same document in each case.
-2-

Analysis
Plaintiff seeks leave to file his memorandum in support of partial summary judgment – along
with 26 exhibits in support thereof – under seal. In support of the request, plaintiff states that (1)
the parties have produced or disclosed a large number of documents and information which is
subject to a protective order in the case; (2) most of the depositions taken in the case contain
testimony related to confidential documents and information; (3) the documents which plaintiff
seeks to seal contain many references to documents and deposition testimony of a private or
confidential nature, including records of internal affairs complaints and investigations as well as
certain information that pertains to personnel matters; and (4) defendants maintain that the privacy
interests in the deposition testimony and documents substantially outweigh the public’s right of
access to this information. Memorandum In Support Of Consent Motion For Leave To File Under
Seal (Doc. #269) filed June 18, 2013 at 1-2.
Plaintiff asserts generally that the documents contain private or confidential information, but
he provides no explanation as to why the information, if disclosed, might be harmful to either party.
On this record, plaintiff has not come close to meeting his heavy burden to articulate a real and
substantial interest which justifies depriving the public access to records which inform the Court’s
decision-making process.3 See Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292. That defendants consent to the motion and

3

Also, plaintiff has not shown that redaction would not sufficiently protect any
information which is legitimately confidential. Pursuant to the District of Kansas Administrative
Procedure for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means, plaintiff
may redact personal data as follows:
To address the privacy concerns created by Internet access to court documents,
litigants shall modify or partially redact the following personal data identifiers
appearing in documents filed with the court:
(continued...)
-3-

the Court has entered a protective order do not in themselves provide sufficient reasons to seal the
documents. Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. v. BioMedix Vascular Solutions, Inc., No. 11-4093SAC, 2012 WL 884926, at *1 (D. Kan. March 14, 2012); Carefusion 213, LLC v. Professional
Disposables, Inc., No. 09-2616-KHV-DJW, 2010 WL 2653643, at *1 (D. Kan. June 29, 2010).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Consent Motion For Leave To File Under
Seal (Doc. #268) filed June 18, 2013 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 28th day of June, 2013 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
Kathryn H. Vratil
United States District Judge

3

(...continued)
1. Social Security numbers: Use only the last four numbers; and
2. Minors’ names: Use the minors’ initials;
3. Dates of birth: Use only the year; and
4. Financial account numbers: Identify the name or type of account and the
financial institution where maintained, but use only the last four numbers of
the account number.
In addition, parties may modify or partially redact other confidential information as
permitted by the court (e.g., driver’s license numbers, medical records, employment
history, individual financial information, and proprietary or trade secret information).
***

District of Kansas Administrative Procedure for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers
by Electronic Means in Civil Cases, § II., I.
-4-