Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180130_0000153.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:34:16+00:00

Document:
Defendant has filed an unopposed motion for leave to file under seal the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of proposed collection action settlement agreement, including all attached exhibits (ECF No. 33). Because the motion does not mention, let alone analyze, the factors relevant to sealing court filings, the motion is denied.
Defendant has not articulated any facts upon which the court could conclude that its interest in keeping the settlement discussions confidential would overcome the public's right of access to the documents. Defendant's request to seal the documents is therefore denied.
 Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, 663 F.3d 1124, 1135 (10th Cir. 2011); accord Hatfield v. Price Mgmt. Co., No. 04-2563-JWL, 2005 WL 375665, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 16, 2005). See also Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognizing, “Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records, ” and citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); United States v. Apperson, 642 F. App'x 892, 898 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”).
 Apperson, 642 F. App'x at 899 (quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)); Riker v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 315 F. App'x 752, 754-55 (10th Cir. 2009) (same).
 Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292B93.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.