United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Doran Law Office's 1) Motion for
Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Marshal's
Sale, Renewed and as Modified Under Seal (Doc. 112) and 2)
Motion for Court Order to File Plaintiff's Response and
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees Under Seal (Doc. 113). Plaintiff seeks
leave to file under seal the entire response memorandum and
motion to confirm sale, which includes a report to the Court
and request for hearing, as well as three exhibits. In
support of the motion to seal, Plaintiff states that the
response memorandum, motion to confirm sale, and exhibits
include material identified as “Confidential
Information” pursuant to the Protective Order,
thus should be sealed in their entirety.
courts “recognize a general right to inspect and copy
public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” The Court, however, does have
“discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary,
records and files in its possession.” “In
exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the
interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount,
against those advanced by the parties.” “The Court
should seal documents based only on articulable facts known
to the Court, and not based on unsupported hypothesis or
Court grants Plaintiff's motion to file under seal the
proposed sealed Exhibits 1 and 2 to the motion to confirm
sale that have been identified as relating to the
Confidential Information. But the Court cannot grant the
motion for leave to seal the entire motion, report, request
for hearing, and Exhibit 3 or the memorandum in response to
motion for attorney fees based solely on the fact that they
reference the information identified as Confidential under
the Protective Order. It appears that both the motion to
confirm sale and response memorandum could be presented in
redacted form to account for some references to Confidential
Information. Indeed, the Protective Order provides the
5. Filing of Confidential Information. In
the event a party seeks to file any document containing
Confidential Information subject to protection under this
Order with the court, that party must take appropriate action
to insure that the document receives proper protection from
public disclosure including seeking permission to file the
document under seal by filing a motion for leave to file
under seal in accordance with D. Kan. Rule 5.4.6.
Nothing in this Order will be construed as a prior directive
to allow any document to be filed under seal. The parties
understand that the requested documents may be filed under
seal only with the permission of the court after proper
when redaction or in camera review is inadequate does the
Protective Order provide for filing sealed documents, and
only then, when the Court is able to perform the balancing
test set forth above. If the parties agree that the motion
and memorandum should be filed in redacted form, Plaintiff
may file a motion for leave to file a redacted motion and
memorandum, attaching the proposed redacted documents, with
an unredacted copy provided separately to the Court. If the
Court grants leave to file the redacted motion and
memorandum, the Clerk's office will then file the
unredacted copy as a sealed attachment.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc.
112) is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's motion to seal the attached Exhibits 1 and 2
to the motion to confirm sale is granted.
Plaintiff's motion to confirm sale, report to the Court,
request for hearing, and Exhibit 3 is denied without
prejudice to refiling as explained in this order.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Court Order to File Response Memorandum Under Seal (Doc. 113)
is denied without prejudice to refiling as
explained in this order.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Doc. 80.
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,