FEDERAL COURT, Oct 14 — In the District of
Colorado, Inner City Press filed a motion to intervene in
Preciado v. RugsUSA, LLC, 1:25-cv-01243-CNS-KAS (D.
Colo.), opposing a June 25 motion by the plaintiff to
restrict nine documents — including Daubert opposition
briefs and deposition excerpts from the defendant's
witnesses — based solely on the defendant's
confidentiality designations under a private protective
order. That motion has now been docketed by Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney's court. She referred its resolution
to a Magistrate Judge - who on October 13 granted Inner
City Press' motion, see below.
The motion argues that a party's
designation in a discovery protective order does not
automatically satisfy the legal standard for sealing
judicial documents, and asks the court to direct public
re-filing with narrower redactions.
On October 13, Magistrate Judge
Kathryn A. Starnella issued a Minute
Order sustaining Inner City Press’s objection and
denying the motion to restrict public access. The Clerk of
Court is ordered to lift the Level 1 Restriction on a
dozen docket entries: ECF Nos. 101, 102, 102-1, 102-2,
106, 107, 107-1, 107-2, 110, 112, 112-1 and 112-2. These
are the briefs and deposition excerpts that the plaintiff,
on the defendant’s behalf, had asked to keep sealed
because the defendant had designated them confidential
under a protective order.
The judge agreed with the core of our
argument, writing that Inner City Press “argues, quite
correctly, that ‘[a] protective order governing discovery
does not automatically translate into a right to seal
judicial records; the party seeking restriction must make
an independent showing before the court.’†She also noted
our point that many of the documents contain deposition
testimony that will bear directly on the Court’s
decision-making. And RugsUSA gave up: after it
“re-reviewed the challenged restrictions,†it responded
that, “[g]iven the context in which Defendant’s
information is presented,†it “does not oppose the
[Objection] and agrees that [the documents] can be
publicly filed.â€
One more note, for those following access
fights in other courts. The Court said Inner City Press
does not meet the requirements for intervention under Rule
24, but that it did not need to: Local Rule 7.2(d) of the
District of Colorado provides that “[a]ny person may file
an objection to [a] motion to restrict.†That's how it
should be everywhere.
Meanwhile EDNY Judge William F. Koontz
denied Inner City Press' motion to unseal - or even just
docket - the secret case 18-cr-277, giving raise to Inner
City Press' notice of appeal to the 2d Circuit.
Inner City Press will continue to monitor
all four dockets and report on any developments.
