Hodgson Law Firm, LLC v. Kingston

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Seal Case. See Order for details and deadlines. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 03/14/2018. (tvn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-2730-DDC-JPO
v.
KRISTI KINGSTON,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 11). The
parties ask the court to enter an order sealing plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), defendant’s Motion
to Strike (Doc. 7), and defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). The parties contend that these
documents contain confidential and prejudicial information and that the parties’ interest in
protecting this information outweighs the public’s access to the documents. Specifically, the
parties explain that portions of these documents contain confidential information about the
parties’ settlement negotiations during and after mediation. The parties assert that Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 435.014.21 and the parties’ mediation agreement require the parties to keep this information
confidential.

1
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.014.2 provides:
Arbitration, conciliation and mediation proceedings shall be regarded as settlement
negotiations. Any communication relating to the subject matter of such disputes made
during the resolution process by any participant, mediator, conciliator, arbitrator or any
other person present at the dispute resolution shall be a confidential communication. No
admission, representation, statement or other confidential communication made in setting
up or conducting such proceedings not otherwise discoverable or obtainable shall be
admissible as evidence or subject to discovery.

When considering the parties’ request here, the court is guided by the standard governing
the right of access to judicial records. The Supreme Court recognizes the “general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S 589, 597 (1978) (citations omitted). But this right is
not an absolute one. Id. at 598. For example, a court may invoke its “supervisory power over its
own records and files” to deny access to “court files [that] might have become a vehicle for
improper purposes.” Id. (citations omitted). A party may rebut the presumption of access to
judicial records by demonstrating that “countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public
interests in access.” Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking to deny access must shoulder the burden to
establish a sufficiently significant interest that outweighs the presumption of public access. Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
This legal standard thus requires federal courts to assess competing interests, weighing
those interests that favor the general right of public access and those that genuinely deserve some
protection. When engaging in this endeavor, the case authority confers substantial discretion on
district judges. See, e.g., Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599; see also Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. They must
utilize this discretion “in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. And a reviewing court generally will not disturb a decision “to keep the
case file public” unless it holds “a definite and firm conviction that [the district judge] made a
clear error of judgment or [one that] exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the
circumstances.” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the parties have demonstrated that confidentiality considerations heavily outweigh
the public’s right to access specific information contained in the Complaint, Motion to Strike,

2

and Motion to Dismiss. The information discussing the parties’ settlement negotiations is
deemed confidential by state law, and, the court agrees, the interest recognized by the state law is
adequate to disturb the presumption of public access. But the court declines to seal these
documents in their entirety, as the parties request, because only small portions of these
documents contain information about the parties’ confidential settlement negotiations.
For example, the parties explain that only paragraphs 56–59 and 61–64 of the Complaint
(Doc. 1) contain confidential information. So, the court will preclude public access to this
information only. The court thus directs plaintiff to submit a redacted version of the Complaint,
redacting just paragraphs 56–59 and 61–64 from the pleading. Plaintiff should file this
document as an Amended Redacted Complaint.
Also, the court directs defendant to file amended redacted versions of her Motion to
Strike (Doc. 7) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). These amended redacted versions may omit
only those portions of the motions (and the corresponding exhibits) that specifically quote or
describe the Complaint’s paragraphs containing confidential information or otherwise contain
confidential information about the parties’ settlement negotiations.
The court orders the parties to file their Amended Redacted versions of the Complaint
(Doc. 1), Motion to Strike (Doc. 7), and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), within 10 days of the date
of this Order. The court also orders the Clerk of the Court to place under seal the Complaint
(Doc. 1), Motion to Strike (Doc. 7), and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8).
Finally, the court seeks a clarification from the parties. It is unclear whether the court’s
ruling in this Order renders defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 7) as moot. The court thus
directs the parties to answer this question by submitting an email to
[e-mail], within 10 days of the date of this Order. If both

3

parties agree that Doc. 7 is now moot, they shall so state in one joint message provided to the
court with a copy to all counsel. If one or more parties contend that Doc. 7 is not moot, it must
file a supplemental memorandum explaining why Doc. 7 is not moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the parties’ Joint Motion
to Seal Case (Doc. 11) is granted in part and denied in part. The court grants the parties’ request
to seal information about the parties’ confidential settlement negotiations but denies their request
to seal the filings in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file Amended Redacted versions of
the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Motion to Strike (Doc. 7), and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8),
redacting only those portions of the documents that describe the parties’ confidential settlement
negotiations, within 10 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court should place under seal the
Complaint (Doc. 1), the Motion to Strike (Doc. 7), and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must advise the court whether this Order
moots the pending Motion to Strike. The court directs the parties to email their response to the
court at [e-mail], within 10 days of the date of this Order. If
both parties agree that Doc. 7 is now moot, they shall so state in one joint message provided to
the court with a copy to all counsel. If one or more parties contend that Doc. 7 is not moot, it
must file a supplemental memorandum explaining why Doc. 7 is not moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of March, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

4