Bancinsure, Inc. v. McCaffree et al

Filing 162

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 128 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 7/3/2013. (mh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BANCINSURE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARL L. MCCAFFREE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-2110-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that its policy
provides no coverage for any claims that FDIC-R might assert in a lawsuit against former
Columbian Bank and Trust Company officers and directors. This matter comes before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Documents Under Seal (Doc. #128) filed May 6, 2013.
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing it to file under seal the memorandum in support
of its motion for summary judgment. The only stated reason is that this memorandum discusses,
quotes from and attaches as exhibits documents that plaintiff has designated as confidential.
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, 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 some significant interest that outweighs
the presumption. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149.
In support of its motion to file a memorandum under seal, plaintiff alleges only that the
memorandum and exhibits thereto contain information which it wishes to remain confidential.
Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Documents Under Seal (Doc. #128) at 2. Plaintiff does not
suggest why this information, if disclosed, might be harmful to either party.
As in Helm, plaintiff has not articulated a substantial interest that justifies overriding the
public’s substantial interest in access to court records. The Court therefore overrules the motion to
file under seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Documents
Under Seal (Doc. #128) filed May 6, 2013 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 2013 at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge

-2-