Opinion
Case No. 04-cv-1099-JLK-DLW.
February 28, 2008
ORDER
Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Motions to Seal (Doc. ## 282, 283) are REJECTED because they do not comply with the Court's direction in its Minute Order of February 21, 2008 (Doc. #279). As relevant here, this Order stated:
Because Defendant is the party that designated the referenced documents as confidential, it shall address in its response why filing of these documents under seal is appropriate under the standards articulated in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598-602 (1978) (applied in United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)), Crystal Grower's Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980)), and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 and 7.3, this Court makes an independent determination of a motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access to any materials that have been presented for filing in the public record. These provisions and the Court's obligation under them apply to any document a party has designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order that is subsequently presented for filing. It is the Court's prerogative, not the parties, to determine whether the interests of a party in maintaining the confidentiality of designated documents outweighs the public's right of access to proceedings conducted in this court.
Accordingly, Defendant shall have until Monday, March 3, 2008, to file a response attempting to demonstrate that materials that are the subject of the Plaintiff's Motions to Seal (Doc. ## 276, 227) should be sealed in whole or in part under the standards set forth in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 and the cases cited in the February 21 Minute Order. If Defendant fails to file a response by this date or fails to persuade me that sealing all or some of the documents is warranted under these standards, then I will direct the Clerk to unseal the documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.