Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc.

Filing 130

NOTICE OF UNSEALING AND ORDER - See order for deadlines. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 4/9/2020. (smc)

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.,
Defendant.

NOTICE OF UNSEALING AND ORDER
The Court filed under seal today’s Memorandum and Order ruling on Defendant’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees given its reliance on information contained in documents previously
filed under seal. This status is temporary until the Court can determine the extent to which its
Order should be redacted, if at all. Federal courts “recognize a general right to inspect and copy
public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”1 The Court, however,
does have “discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its
possession.”2 “In exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the interests of the public,
which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.”3 “The party seeking
to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that
outweighs the presumption.”4
Consistent with these standards, the Court adopts the following procedure:

1

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

2

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

3

Id.; United States v. Apperson, 642 F. App’x 892, 899 (10th Cir. 2016).

4

Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).

1

(1)

The parties shall forthwith meet and confer to determine whether any part of the
Court’s Order should be redacted under the standards set forth above.

(2)

By no later than April 30, 2020, the parties shall jointly file a motion for leave to
file a redacted version of the Court’s Order, explaining why the proposed
redactions are necessary, and attaching the proposed redacted version for the
Court’s review. The parties also shall email copies of the proposed order to
[e-mail].

(3)

After reviewing the parties’ motion and proposed order, the Court will rule on the
request. If the parties do not file a motion for leave to seal as set forth above on
or before April 30, 2020, the Court will unseal the entire Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2020
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2