Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc.

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Plaintiff's motion to seal the attached Exhibits 1 and 2 to the motion to confirm sale is granted. Counsel directed to file forthwith requested document(s) with an event from the SEALED DOCUMENTS category. The clerk shall grant access to sealed document(s) to counsel of record. Pro hac vice attorneys must obtain sealed document(s) from local counsel. Plaintiff's motion to confirm sal e, report to the Court, request for hearing, and Exhibit 3 is denied without prejudice to refiling as explained in this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 113 Motion for Court Order to File Response Memorandum Under Seal is denied without prejudice to refiling as explained in this order. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 10/25/19. (hw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DORAN LAW OFFICE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-2046-JAR-KGG

v.
STONEHOUSE RENTALS, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Doran Law Office’s 1) Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s
Motion to Confirm Marshal’s Sale, Renewed and as Modified Under Seal (Doc. 112) and 2)
Motion for Court Order to File Plaintiff’s Response and Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Under Seal (Doc. 113). Plaintiff seeks leave to file
under seal the entire response memorandum and motion to confirm sale, which includes a report
to the Court and request for hearing, as well as three exhibits. In support of the motion to seal,
Plaintiff states that the response memorandum, motion to confirm sale, and exhibits include
material identified as “Confidential Information” pursuant to the Protective Order,1 and thus
should be sealed in their entirety.
Federal courts “recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and documents.”2 The Court, however, does have
“discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.”3 “In
exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the interests of the public, which are

1

Doc. 80.

2

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

3

Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980).

1

presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.”4 “The Court should seal
documents based only on articulable facts known to the Court, and not based on unsupported
hypothesis or conjecture.”5
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal the proposed sealed Exhibits 1 and 2
to the motion to confirm sale that have been identified as relating to the Confidential
Information. But the Court cannot grant the motion for leave to seal the entire motion, report,
request for hearing, and Exhibit 3 or the memorandum in response to motion for attorney fees
based solely on the fact that they reference the information identified as Confidential under the
Protective Order. It appears that both the motion to confirm sale and response memorandum
could be presented in redacted form to account for some references to Confidential Information.
Indeed, the Protective Order provides the following guidance:
5. Filing of Confidential Information. In the event a party seeks to file
any document containing Confidential Information subject to protection under
this Order with the court, that party must take appropriate action to insure that the
document receives proper protection from public disclosure including seeking
permission to file the document under seal by filing a motion for leave to file
under seal in accordance with D. Kan. Rule 5.4.6.
Nothing in this Order will be construed as a prior directive to allow any
document to be filed under seal. The parties understand that the requested
documents may be filed under seal only with the permission of the court after
proper motion.6
Only when redaction or in camera review is inadequate does the Protective Order provide
for filing sealed documents, and only then, when the Court is able to perform the balancing test
set forth above. If the parties agree that the motion and memorandum should be filed in redacted

4

Id.; see also United States v. Apperson, Nos. 14–3069, 14–3070, 2016 WL 898885, at *6 (10th Cir. Mar.

5

McCaffrey v. Mortg. Sources, Corp., No. 08-2660-KHV, 2010 WL 4024065, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 13,

6

Doc. 80 ¶ 5.

9, 2016).
2010).

2

form, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to file a redacted motion and memorandum, attaching
the proposed redacted documents, with an unredacted copy provided separately to the Court. If
the Court grants leave to file the redacted motion and memorandum, the Clerk’s office will then
file the unredacted copy as a sealed attachment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal (Doc. 112) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to seal
the attached Exhibits 1 and 2 to the motion to confirm sale is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to
confirm sale, report to the Court, request for hearing, and Exhibit 3 is denied without prejudice
to refiling as explained in this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order to File Response
Memorandum Under Seal (Doc. 113) is denied without prejudice to refiling as explained in this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2019
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3