Raymond et al v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 369

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER taking under advisement 365 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal ; taking under advisement 367 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. The court will likewise hold the motion in abeyance for 7 days to give Defendants an opportunity to explain the justification for sealing them and, absent such a showing, will order that they be filed without seal. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 5/9/2018. (sz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DONETTA RAYMOND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-1282-JWB

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc.
365) and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 367). According to Plaintiffs –
who argue the exhibits should not be sealed - Defendants have designated the exhibits in question
as “confidential” or “highly confidential.” (Doc. 365 at 2).
The standard 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, *1 (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. Without question, documents submitted by parties for the court’s
consideration in connection with a summary judgment motion constitute “judicial
records” to which a strong presumption of public access attaches. [cite omitted]
The confidential nature of the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ motion (Docs. 365-3 through
365-6) is not apparent. As Judge Lungstrum noted, the “fact that the exhibits are ‘confidential’
within the meaning of the parties’ protective order has no bearing on whether those exhibits should

be sealed in the record.” Id. at *2. Absent a showing of some significant interest, the court cannot
grant the motion to seal these exhibits. The court will accordingly hold Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc.
365) in abeyance and give Defendant 7 days to file a sealed response showing that a specified
interest concerning the exhibits outweighs the public’s interest in access to judicial records. If no
such showing is made, the court will order that the exhibits be filed without seal.
As for Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Seal (Doc. 367), Defendants have made a showing
that the confidential nature of information pertaining to non-party employees should be sealed at
this point. The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits HH-1 and 94-1. As to
Defendants’ remaining exhibits, Defendants have not adequately explained why bits of metadata
(e.g.. file paths) or Defendants’ reduction-in-force policies and practices (policies at issue in this
case) are justifiably sealed in view of the strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
With respect to these remaining exhibits, the court will likewise hold the motion in abeyance for
7 days to give Defendants an opportunity to explain the justification for sealing them and, absent
such a showing, will order that they be filed without seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2018.
___s/ John W. Broomes____________
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2