Holick v. Burkhart

Filing 206

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 199 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. The denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a motion that contains an adequate showing for sealing the exhibits. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 05/08/2018. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARK HOLICK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-1188-JWB

JULIE A. BURKHART,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
(Docs. 199, 200). The motion asserts that the exhibits attached to the motion “are of the nature that
they should be sealed” and indicates that Defendant agrees to the sealing of the exhibits. (Doc.
199 at 1).
The standards governing sealing court records was summarized by Judge Lungstrum in
New Jersey and its Div. of Inv. v. Sprint Corp., No. 03-2071-JWL, 2010 WL 5416837 (D. Kan.
Dec. 17, 2010):
Courts, including the Tenth Circuit, have long recognized a common-law right of
access to judicial records. Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir.2007)
(citations omitted). The right of access to judicial records is not absolute and the
presumption of access “can be rebutted if countervailing interests heavily outweigh
the public interests in access.” Id. The party seeking to overcome the presumption
bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the
presumption. Id.
Plaintiff’s motion fails to identify any basis for sealing the exhibits in question, let alone
one that outweighs the public interest in access to court records. The exhibits referred to by
Plaintiff (Docs. 199, 200) appear to include some documents previously filed publicly in state
court and/or attached to unsealed filings in the present case, as well as several affidavits, which

are ordinarily considered public records when filed. Absent a showing of the privacy interests or
other factors that justify sealing these records, the court cannot grant the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2018, that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 199) is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff
refiling a motion that contains an adequate showing for sealing the exhibits.

___s/ John W. Broomes____________
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2