Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc.

District Court, D. Kansas·Decided April 9, 2020·No. 2:14-cv-02046·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DORAN LAW OFFICE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:14-2046-JAR-KGG

STONEHOUSE RENTALS, INC.,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF UNSEALING AND ORDER The Court filed under seal today’s Memorandum and Order ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees given its reliance on information contained in documents previously filed under seal. This status is temporary until the Court can determine the extent to which its Order should be redacted, if at all. Federal courts “recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”1 The Court, however, does have “discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.”2 “In exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.”3 “The party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.”4 Consistent with these standards, the Court adopts the following procedure:

1 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 2 Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980). 3 Id.; United States v. Apperson, 642 F. App’x 892, 899 (10th Cir. 2016). 4 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). 1 (1) The parties shall forthwith meet and confer to determine whether any part of the Court’s Order should be redacted under the standards set forth above. (2) By no later than April 30, 2020, the parties shall jointly file a motion for leave to file a redacted version of the Court’s Order, explaining why the proposed redactions are necessary, and attaching the proposed redacted version for the

Court’s review. The parties also shall email copies of the proposed order to ksd_robinson_chambers@ksd.uscourts.gov. (3) After reviewing the parties’ motion and proposed order, the Court will rule on the request. If the parties do not file a motion for leave to seal as set forth above on or before April 30, 2020, the Court will unseal the entire Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020 S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc., (D. Kan. 2020).

Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc. (Doran Law Office v. Stonehouse Rentals, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Mann v. Boatright
477 F.3d 1140 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Apperson
642 F. App'x 892 (Tenth Circuit, 2016)