Gambrill et al v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/City of Kansas City et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 97 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 1/16/2014. (ag)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARK GAMBRILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE
COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-2699-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mark Gambrill, Jeffrey Gardner, Trung Hoang and Michael Mills bring suit against the
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas and multiple police officers for
violation of constitutional and common law rights. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’
Motion For Leave To File Under Seal (Doc. #97) filed January 10, 2013. For reasons stated below,
the Court overrules the motion.
Legal Standards
Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Helm v. Kansas, 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)).
Analysis
Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal a proposed surreply to defendants’ reply in support of
their motion to consolidate four cases for purposes of trial and to bifurcate the trial as to liability and
damages.1 Plaintiffs state that they make the request because their proposed surreply and exhibits
thereto contain “information that has been designated as confidential pursuant to Protective Order
including information pertaining to their mental health treatment.” Motion For Leave To File Under
Seal (Doc. #97) at 1. Plaintiffs provide no explanation as to why disclosure of the information might
be harmful to the parties. On this record, plaintiffs have not come close to meeting the 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. See Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; see also
Memorandum And Order (Doc. #279) filed June 28, 2013 in Case No. 11-2621 (overruling

1

Defendants filed their reply on January 3, 2014. See Doc. #94. On January 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the reply or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surreply. Pursuant
to D. Kan. Rule 15.1, a party seeking leave to file a document must attach the proposed document
to its motion. Here, plaintiffs seek to file the attachment under seal.
-2-

plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal motion for partial summary judgment).
Moreover, plaintiffs have 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, plaintiffs
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:
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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To File Under Seal
(Doc. #97) filed January 10, 2013 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 16th day of January, 2014 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
Kathryn H. Vratil
United States District Judge

-3-