Bouncing Bear Botanicals, Inc. et al v. KTW Enterprises, Ltd. et al

Filing 167

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 163 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 4/30/2012. (nf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BOUNCING BEAR BOTANICALS, INC.,
JONATHAN SLOAN and BRAD MILLER,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
KTW ENTERPRISES, LTD., RYAN SCOTT, )
a/k/a BO SCOTT and ALEX DIMOV, d/b/a
)
ALLEGRAND ENTERPRISES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 10-4138-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Bouncing Bear Botanicals, Inc., Jonathan Sloan and Brad Miller brought suit against
KTW Enterprises, LTD (“KTW”), Ryan Scott and Alex Dimov, alleging violations of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121 et seq., and various supplemental state law tort claims and
trademark violations. See Complaint (Doc. #1) filed Nov. 10, 2011. On January 6, 2012, the
parties filed a Stipulation Of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. #160) which
dismissed the claims against KTW and Scott. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’
Motion To File Documents Under Seal (Doc. #163) filed January 6, 2012. Under D. Kan. Rule
5.4.6, plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal documents in support of a motion for default
judgment. Specifically, plaintiffs ask that they be allowed to file under seal certain documents
subject to a protective order (Doc. #81) which the parties have designated as “Confidential –
Attorneys Eyes Only” and “Confidential.”
Aside from the protective order, any motion to seal must establish that interests which
favor non-disclosure outweigh the public interest in access to court documents. See Nixon v.

Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed.2d 570 (1978); Crystal
Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980). The public has a fundamental
interest in understanding disputes that are presented to a public forum for resolution. Crystal
Grower’s Corp., 616 F.2d at 461. In addition, the public interest in district court proceedings
includes the assurance that courts are run fairly and that judges are honest. Id. To establish good
cause, a moving party must submit particular and specific facts, and not merely “stereotyped and
conclusory statements.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16, 101 S. Ct. 2193, 68 L.
Ed.2d 693.
Plaintiffs provide no argument or authority to support their request that the documents
remain under seal. They do not suggest why the information, if disclosed, would be harmful to
any party. Furthermore, they do not demonstrate that redaction would be insufficient to protect
any legitimately-confidential information. Instead, plaintiffs base their request fully on the
protective order. The Court therefore denies the motion to seal the documents. See e.g. Sibley v.
Sprint Nextel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 662, 667 (D. Kan. 2008).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion To File Documents Under
Seal (Doc. #163), filed January 6, 2012, be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge

2