Free Order on Motion to Seal Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00421-MSK-PAC

Document 80

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Civil Action No. 04-cv-00421-MSK-OES CLAIRE D. FITZGERALD, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff' Motion to File Motion in s Limine Under Seal (#76). The motion states it is unopposed. Having considered the motion, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that: The Supreme Court acknowledged a common-law right of access to judicial records in 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., 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) (J. Kane). There is a presumption that documents essential to the judicial process are to be available to the public, but they may be sealed when the public's right of access is outweighed by interests

Case 1:04-cv-00421-MSK-PAC

Document 80

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

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 particular court document should be sealed. See Nixon, 435 U.S at 599. Only in the rarest of cases is the sealing of documents appropriate ­for example, cases involving intensely personal issues such as abortion or birth control, or cases pertaining to the welfare of abandoned or illegitimate children. See Doe v. F.B.I., 218 F.R.D. 256, 259 (D. Colo. 2003). In furtherance of the common law right of access to court records, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado promulgated D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, which provides in relevant part: A. Scope. Upon motion and a showing of compelling reasons, a judicial officer may order that: 1. all or a portion of papers and documents filed in a case shall be sealed; or all or a portion of court proceedings shall be closed to the public.

2.

Such a showing is required to ensure public confidence in the judicial process. It is critical that the public be able to review the factual basis of this Court's decisions and evaluate the Court's rationale so that it may be confident that the Court is functioning as a neutral arbiter. Cf. McVeigh, 119 F.3d at 814. Here, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion in limine under seal. The motion in limine refers to three sexually explicit photographs of the Plaintiff, but the photographs are not attached to the motion. The fact that these photographs exist is not a confidential matter. Indeed, the photographs are referenced in the exhibits to the Plaintiff' summary judgment response brief. s Therefore, there are no compelling reasons for the motion in limine to be filed under seal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to File Motion in Limine Under Seal

Case 1:04-cv-00421-MSK-PAC

Document 80

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 3 of 3

(#76) is DENIED. Dated this 8th day of February, 2006 BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge