Sparto v. Hearts for Hospice et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER- Defendant's 80 Motion to Seal Court Records is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/25/2023. (mh)

Case 2:12-cv-00801-TS Document 82 Filed 04/25/23 PageID.577 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PATRICIA D. SPARTO, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEARTS FOR HOSPICE, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company; and SHAW
PHILLIPS, an individual,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SEAL COURT RECORDS
Case No. 2:12-cv-00801-TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Shaw Phillips’ Motion to Seal Court
Records (Docket No. 80). Mr. Phillips argues that, unless the records are sealed, employment and
public agencies will have access to the court file, which may impair Mr. Phillips’ ability to
“obtain upscale employment in the future.” 1
The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is deficient and lacks sufficient basis under
DUCivR 5-2. The rule states that “[c]ourt records are presumptively open to the public. Unless
restricted by statute or court order, the sealing of civil cases is highly discouraged.” 2 “‘The party
seeking to overcome the presumption’ of public access to [court] documents ‘bears the burden of
showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.’” 3 A party moving to seal
court records must “identify the statute, rule, case law, or other basis permitting the court to seal

1

Docket No. 80-1 ¶ 5–6.

2

DUCivR 5-2(a).

3

Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477
F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)).

Case 2:12-cv-00801-TS Document 82 Filed 04/25/23 PageID.578 Page 2 of 2

the case.” 4 Mr. Phillips has not identified any authority for sealing the records in this case but
instead asserts potential reputational harm, should a future employer see the case file.
Sealing documents and entire cases is discouraged in United States courts because “[i]n
the United States, there is both a constitutional (First Amendment) and common law right of
public access to judicial documents.” 5 The potential for reputational harm is typically not enough
to overcome the heavy presumption in favor of keeping court records open to the public. 6
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s non-opposition to the Motion, the Court concludes that Mr. Phillips
has not demonstrated a “significant interest” overcoming the presumption of public access.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal Court Records (Docket No. 80) is DENIED.
DATED April 25, 2023.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

4

DUCivR 5-2(c)(2).

5

Veleron Holding, B.V. v. Stanley, No. 12 Civ. 5966(CM), 2014 WL 1569610, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2014); see also United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2020)
(“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”) (citation
omitted).
6

See Miller v. Fluent Home, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00641-JCB, 2020 WL 5659051, at *1–2
(D. Utah Sept. 23, 2020) (denying motion to seal despite defendant’s claim of reputational harm).
2