Houston v. Independent School District No 89 of Oklahoma County Oklahoma et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Seal Dispositive Motions, Briefs and Exhibits. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 4/30/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARTHUR HOUSTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
)
NO. 89 OKLAHOMA COUNTY,
)
OKLAHOMA a/k/a OKLAHOMA CITY )
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and
)
DEANN DAVIS, in her individual capacity )
as Executive Director of Elementary
)
Schools for the Oklahoma City Public
)
Schools,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-12-474-D

ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendants’ Application to Seal Dispositive Motions, Briefs,
and Exhibits [Doc. No. 44], the Court finds the Application provides insufficient information
to permit a determination that the requested relief is necessary to protect confidential
personnel information of nonparties. The Application states only that “Defendants are
preparing to file dispositive motions which would include documents and testimony
regarding the confidential personnel information produced in discovery.” Motion, ¶ 5. If
Defendants wish to utilize confidential documents as exhibits to their dispositive motions,
the Court would permit the filing of sealed exhibits. But the Court does not routinely
authorize sealed filings of entire motions and briefs containing legal arguments and
nonconfidential information regarding the merits of a case.

The court of appeals has explained its position concerning the sealing of court records
as follows:
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial
records,” but this right “is not absolute.” Thus, the presumption of access to
judicial records may be overcome where “countervailing interests heavily
outweigh the public interests in access.” The burden is on the party seeking
to restrict access to show “some significant interest that outweighs the
presumption.”
Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mann v.
Boatwright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)) (footnote and citations omitted); see Helm
v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (court “may seal documents if the public’s
right of access is outweighed by competing interests”). Here, the Court finds Defendants
have provided an insufficient basis for their request to seal the entire summary judgment
record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Application to Seal Dispositive
Motions, Briefs, and Exhibits [Doc. No. 44] is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission
of a more specific request.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2014.