NuCloud Global v. TLS Group

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 3 Motion to Seal Case; Case unsealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/23/2015. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

NUCLOUD GLOBAL, INC., a Missouri
Corporation
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00260-DBP
v.
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
TLS GROUP, S.A., a Luxembourg company,
Defendant.

I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is pending consent before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). It is before the

Court on Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Leave to File Complaint Under Seal. (Dkt. 3)
II.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks leave to file its complaint under seal. Plaintiff’s only asserted justification

for doing so is that the agreement underlying the lawsuit is subject to a confidentiality
agreement. (Dkt. 3 at 2.)
The Supreme Court has explained that “the courts of this country recognize a general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, (1978) (footnote omitted).
This public access to court documents separates this country from others with less transparency.
Id. “This right is premised upon the recognition that public monitoring of the courts fosters
important values such as respect for the legal system.” Vega v. Wiley, No. 07-1357, 2007 WL

4287730, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2007) (citing In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st
Cir.2002)). In recognition of this right of access, the District of Utah has implemented a local
rule urging counsel to be “highly selective” about filing such motions, which will only be
granted upon showing that there is some legal basis for sealing the material at issue:
The records of the court are presumptively open to the public. The court has
observed that counsel are increasingly and improperly overdesignating sealed
materials in pleadings and documents filed with the court. In order to prevent such
overdesignation, the court is now requiring counsel to be highly selective in filing
documents under seal. A portion of a document or portion of a pleading shall be
filed under seal only if the document or pleading, or portions thereof, are
privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law (hereinafter "Sealed Material"). A stipulation, or a blanket protective
order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to
allow the filing of documents under seal.
D.U. Civ. R. 5-2(a).
As Rule 5-2 explicitly states, a stipulation will not suffice to justify sealing of documents.
Likewise, the pre-litigation agreement discussed in Plaintiff’s motion does not provide a sound
basis for sealing the Complaint. As Plaintiff offers no other basis for filing its Complaint under
seal, the request is denied.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2015.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge