United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER
Kathleen M Tafoya United States Magistrate Judge
Before
the court is Plaintiff's “Unopposed Motion to
Restrict Public Access” ([“Mot.”], Doc. No.
24.) Defendant has not filed a response to Plaintiff's
motion.
On
December 13, 2018, Plaintiff Katherine Bush filed this
lawsuit against her former employer, Defendant Catholic
Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health-Penrose-St.
Francis Health Services, alleging violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act [“FMLA”], 29 U.S.C.
§§ 2615(a)(1)-(2). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff
contends, specifically, that Defendant unlawfully terminated
her employment, after she returned from approved FMLA leave.
(Id. at ¶¶ 44-70.)
On June
27, 2019, Defendant moved for judgment in its favor on all of
Plaintiff's claims, arguing that Plaintiff has not shown
that her FMLA status played a factor in her termination.
(Doc. No. 21.) In support of its motion, Defendant submitted
evidence to show that Plaintiff was terminated due to
multiple complaints by coworkers of her sexual misconduct in
the workplace. (Id. at Ex.1, Ex. 1A, Ex. 2, Ex. 3,
Ex. 4.) Six weeks later, on August 13, 2019, the parties
filed a stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, as to all
claims in this action. (Doc. No. 25.) That same day,
Plaintiff filed this Motion, asking the court to restrict
public access to the entirety of Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, as well as Exhibits 1, 1A, 2, 3, and 4.
(Mot. 4.)
In her
Motion, Plaintiff argues that the documents at issue should
be sealed, because the information contained in those
documents is “private” and
“salacious.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff
contends that public access to the documents would cause her
“to suffer extreme embarrassment and mental
anguish.” (Id. at 4.)
The
Supreme Court has acknowledged a common law right of the
public to access judicial records. Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This
right is premised upon the recognition that public monitoring
of the courts fosters important values, such as respect for
the legal system. See In re Providence Journal Co.,
Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002). Judges have a
responsibility to avoid secrecy in court proceedings, because
“secret court proceedings are anathema to a free
society.” M.M. v. Zavaras, 939 F.Supp. 799,
801 (D. Colo. 1996). There is a presumption that documents
essential to the judicial process are to be available to the
public, but access to them may be restricted when the
public's right of access is outweighed by interests which
favor nondisclosure. See United States v. McVeigh,
119 F.3d 806, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). It is within the district
court's discretion to determine whether a specific court
document should be restricted. See Nixon, 435 U.S.
at 599.
Rule
7.2 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado - Civil, which
governs motions to restrict access, makes clear that
documents filed with this District are presumptively
available to the public, and the burden is on the party
seeking restriction to justify such relief. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(a). Under Rule 7.2(c), a motion to
restrict access must: (1) “identify the document or the
proceeding for which restriction is sought;” (2)
“address the interest to be protected and why such
interest outweighs the presumption of public access[;]”
(3) “identify a clearly defined and serious injury that
would result if access is not restricted;” (4)
“explain why no alternative to restriction is
practicable or why only restriction will adequately protect
the interest in question[;]” and (5) “identify
the level of restriction sought.” D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.2(c)(1)-(4). “[T]he movant shall articulate a real
and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public
of access to documents that inform[] the court's
decision-making process.” Slivka v. Young Men's
Christian Assoc. of Pikes Peak Region, --- F.Supp.3d
----, 2019 WL 3059905, at *3 (D. Colo. 2019) (quoting
Preeson v. Parkview Med. Ctr., Inc., No.
15-cv-02263, 2017 WL 1197298, at *16 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2017)). The Tenth Circuit has made clear that “parties
should not routinely or reflexively seek to seal materials
upon which they predicate their arguments for
relief[.]” Lucero v. Sandia Corp., 495
Fed.Appx. 903, 913 (10th Cir. 2012).
In this
case, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that
Defendant's motion for summary judgment and accompanying
exhibits should be sealed. The documents at issue do contain
information that is potentially embarrassing to Plaintiff,
relating to descriptions of her alleged sexual misconduct in
the workplace. However, those allegations are central to the
legal issues adjudicated in this case. Indeed, Plaintiff
expressly references the sexual harassment allegations in her
complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 32, 37, 42.) As a
result, the public's interest in open judicial
proceedings outweigh Plaintiff's privacy interests.
See Cohen v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., No.
13-cv-00578, 2014 WL 3373400, at *2 (D. Colo. July 10, 2014)
(finding exhibits relating to a plaintiffs allegations of sex
and age discrimination should not be restricted, because the
exhibits “relate[d] to matters occurring in connection
with the plaintiffs employment by the defendant and her
charges of discrimination”); Mathews v. Denver
Newspaper Agency, LLP, No. 07-cv-02097, 2011 WL
13213930, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2011) (finding exhibits
relating to allegations of sexual misconduct by a
defendant's employees should be sealed, because the
allegations were “not central to adjudicating the legal
issues in th[e] case, ” and because the employees were
not parties in the lawsuit); see also Riker v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 315 Fed. App'x 752, 754 (10th
Cir. 2009) (“[W]here documents are used to determine
litigants' substantive legal rights, a strong presumption
of access attaches”) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly,
it is
ORDERED
that Plaintiffs “Unopposed Motion to Restrict Public
...