Coulter v. Rusty Eck Ford/Talx UC Express

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 20 plaintiff's Motion to Seal Case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 6/17/15. Mailed to pro se party Chris Coulter by regular mail. (mss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CHRIS COULTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-1159-JTM

RUSTY ECK FORD/TALX UC EXPRESS, ET
AL.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court following the request of pro se plaintiff Chris Coulter
that the court seal the case, with the understanding that this result “would remove this
from the Internet and any future exposure.” (Dkt. 20, at 1). The action was dismissed by the
court on January 8, 2013.
Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 26(c) permits a court to issue protective orders “to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
However, such orders are issued only upon a showing of good cause, and Rule 26 is
directed not at maintenance of the action generally, but for disputes involving discovery.
Thus, Rule 26(c) does include sealing as one potential remedy, but it does so by authorizing
the court to “requir[e] that a deposition be sealed” — not that the court may seal an entire

action.
The discretion to seal certain pleadings is limited both by the language of Rule 26
and “circumscribed by a long-established legal tradition” which values public access to
court proceedings. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th
Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. 1595, 80 L.Ed.2d 127 (1984). “The First
Amendment access right extends to court dockets, records, pleadings, and exhibits, and
establishes a presumption of public access that can only be overcome by specific,
on-the-record findings that the public's interest in access to information is overcome by
specific and compelling showings of harm.” Tri-County Wholesale v. Wine Group, 565
Fed.Appx. 477, 490 (6th Cir. 2012) (Gwin, J., concurring & dissenting in part, citations
omitted).
Parties seeking to overcome the presumption in favor of public access bear the
burden of showing some significant countervailing interest. Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d
1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). Mann upheld the refusal seal plaintiff’s complaint which raised
various family issues as well as one family member’s medical diagnosis. The Tenth Circuit
noted that these privacy interests were limited because the underlying events were also
related in separate probate court proceedings. Ultimately, the court was unconvinced that
plaintiff’s “privacy concern with respect to this information is sufficiently critical to
outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.” Id.
The plaintiff has failed to meet this heavy standard. First, the present motion is
untimely, since the action was filed more than three years ago, and the matter was
dismissed well over three years ago. Publication of the facts has already occurred. Indeed,

the original Complaint itself alleges that the plaintiff was injured through the revelation
of his condition to his family. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 8).
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2015, that the plaintiff’s
Motion to Seal (Dkt. 20) is hereby denied.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE