Black & Veatch Corporation v. Aspen Insurance (UK) LTD et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 426 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 10/8/2019. (ydm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION,
ASPEN INSURANCE (UK) LTD., et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File The MTI
Judgment Order Under Seal (Doc. #426) filed September 26, 2019. For reasons stated below,
the Court overrules defendants’ motion.
Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
This right stems from the
fundamental public interest in understanding disputes that are presented to a public forum for
resolution. Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980). The
public interest in judicial proceedings is intended to ensure that courts are fair and judges are
honest. Id. In determining whether documents should be sealed, the Court weighs the public
interest, which it presumes is paramount, against the interests advanced by the parties. Id. The
party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access must show that some significant
interest which favors non-disclosure outweighs the public interest in access to court proceedings
and documents. See Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. The parties must articulate a real and substantial
interest that justifies depriving the public of access to records that inform the Court’s
decision-making process. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); see Gulf Oil
Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981) (good cause for protective order requires particular
and specific facts, not merely “stereotyped and conclusory statements”) (quotation marks and
Defendants seek to file under seal the Judgment Order entered in Black & Veatch
Corp. v. Midwest Towers, Inc., No. 4:10-cv-00318-SOW in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri. Defendants state that because the judgment order was filed
under seal in the prior action, it likewise should be filed under seal in this case. Defendants do
not address how their interests in non-disclosure of the information outweigh the public interest
in open courts. Accordingly, on the present record, the Court overrules defendants’ motion to
seal. See Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292 (parties cannot overcome presumption against sealing records
simply by showing that records subject to protective order in district court); Colony Ins. Co. v.
Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1242 (10th Cir. 2012) (denying motions to seal where parties did not
submit specific argument or facts indicating why confidentiality of settlement agreements
outweighs presumption of public access).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File The
MTI Judgment Order Under Seal (Doc. #426) filed September 26, 2019 is OVERRULED.
Dated this 8th day of October, 2019 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?