Hammer et al v. Sam's East, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that plaintiffs must file an unredacted copy of their complaint (Doc. 1) on or before November 29, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants must file an unredacted copy of their memorandum (Doc. 18) on or before November 29, 2 012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future pleadings by both parties are to be filed without redactions and that requests for leave to file under seal must be made by formal motion. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 11/27/2012. (mm) Modified on 11/28/2012. (WO) (lak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STEVEN E. HAMMER, and
MICHAEL D. WHITE,
individually and on behalf of all others
SAM’S EAST, INC.,
d/b/a/ SAM’S CLUB, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-2618-CM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 5, 2012, defendants filed a motion for leave to file under seal their memorandum
in support of their motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). In their motion, defendants requested leave to file their
memorandum under seal because it contained “highly confidential information” and because the
plaintiffs had redacted their complaint. The court denied that motion in its November 8, 2012 order
(Doc. 17). At the time, the court was unable to determine exactly what information was purportedly
confidential in the proposed memorandum to be filed under seal. The court also noted that the
complaint was filed with redactions and that the court also could not ascertain what information was
confidential in the complaint.
The court then directed the parties to Local Rule 5.4.6, which governs the procedure for
requesting leave to file under seal and Sections II.I and J of the District of Kansas Administrative
Procedures for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil Cases
(“ECF Administrative Procedures Guide”). The court’s order listed examples of information that
parties must redact, and also provided examples of other confidential information that parties may
redact as permitted by the court. The court determined that defendants had not met their burden to file
the document under seal. The court invited defendants to file a memorandum that complies with the
above-mentioned rules and guidelines, including redactions of legitimately confidential information.
Defendants then filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) with
limited redactions. After this motion was filed, the court received letters from both parties regarding
the redacted documents and detailing correspondence between the parties. As a summary, plaintiffs
first wrote a letter to defendants informing them that plaintiffs intended to file suit and that they would
initially file a redacted complaint to allow defendants time to fix the alleged security issues with
After the court denied defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 14), defendants
filed a redacted memorandum (Doc. 18) and wrote a letter to the court that attached unredacted copies
of their memorandum of the complaint. In this letter, defendants noted that there is a possibility that
the redacted information may be beyond the scope contemplated by the ECF Administrative
Procedures Guide but again stated that they were “following the lead of plaintiffs” by redacting the
Finally, plaintiffs contacted the court by letter and stated that they believe the redactions are not
confidential and that the public has a right to know the redacted information. Plaintiffs stated that they
intend to file an unredacted copy of the complaint and will file a response to defendants’ motion to
dismiss without redactions. Plaintiffs ask that if either party believes a specific pleading should be
filed under seal, the party should file a formal motion requesting the same.
The court has reviewed the unredacted copies of documents provided by the parties and has
determined that the redacted information does exceed the scope contemplated by Sections II.I and J of
the ECF Administrative Procedures Guide and is not confidential. Plaintiffs are to file an unredacted
copy of the complaint with the clerk and defendants are to file an unredacted copy of their
memorandum in support their motion to dismiss. All pleadings filed from this point forward are to be
filed without redactions. Should either party believe that a specific pleading should be filed under seal,
the party should file a formal motion requesting leave to do so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs must file an unredacted copy of their
complaint (Doc. 1) on or before November 29, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants must file an unredacted copy of their
memorandum (Doc. 18) on or before November 29, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future pleadings by both parties are to be filed without
redactions and that requests for leave to file under seal must be made by formal motion.
Dated this 27th day of November, 2012, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia______
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?