Opinion
6:21-cv-01100-EFM-ADM
11-29-2023
PROGENY, a program of Destination Innovations, Inc., CHRISTOPHER COOPER, ELBERT COSTELLO, MARTEL COSTELLO, and JEREMY LEVY, JR., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motions to Seal (Doc. 228). The Motion seeks to seal Doc. 221-1, which contains Plaintiffs', class members', or other individuals' personal identifying information-i.e., home address, date of birth, social security number, phone numbers, photos, and gang affiliation-or communications regarding both dormant and ongoing criminal investigations. Plaintiffs have also submitted a proposed version of Doc. 221-1 with the personal identifying information redacted.
Although there is a presumptive public right of access to judicial records, this right is not absolute. Exercising their discretion, courts may “seal documents if the public's right of access is outweighed by competing interests.” Thus, the party seeking to seal the documents must show some public or private harm that would result from leaving those files unsealed.
JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Montrose, 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2014).
Id. (further citations and quotations omitted).
EST Inc. v. Royal-Grow Prods., LLC, 2020 WL 13576637, at *1 (D. Kan. 2020) (further citations omitted).
Having reviewed the proposed sealed record, the Court in its discretion finds that Plaintiff have met their burden to demonstrate interests that outweigh the public's presumptive right to access court records. As the Court found in its previous order, the harms that may occur from an individual's personal information-especially a nonparty-being filed publicly are self-evident. This is especially true in a case with as sensitive of topics as this. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. 228), GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Doc. 221-1 be SEALED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs file the proposed redacted version of Doc. 221-1 within seven days of the issuance of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.