Opinion ID: 613272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Motions to Seal Portions of the Appendices

Text: Finally, we turn to the parties' motions to seal portions of their respective appendices. Helm seeks to seal five volumes of her six-volume appendix, while the State seeks to seal one volume of its two-volume appendix. The Clerk of this Court provisionally granted the parties' motions, leaving the ultimate decision to this panel. We now deny both motions to seal. Although [c]ourts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records, [10] this right is not absolute. Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir.2007). Accordingly, this Court, in its discretion, may seal documents if the public's right of access is outweighed by competing interests. United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). In exercising this discretion, we weigh the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties. Crystal Grower's Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir.1980). The party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access to the documents bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption. Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149 (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of their motions to seal, the parties allege only that the portions of the volumes of the appendices that they wish to seal contain confidential discovery materials that are subject to a stipulated protective order entered by the district court on January 14, 2009. Even assuming, however, that the district court's protective order is valid and has continuing effect in that court, the order cannot limit our authority to decide whether the parties may file documents under seal in this Court. See Dobbins, 616 F.2d at 461 (It is beyond question that this Court has discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.). Moreover, the parties cannot overcome the presumption against sealing judicial records simply by pointing out that the records are subject to a protective order in the district court. Rather, the parties must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform our decision-making process. Because the parties have not come close to meeting that heavy burden, we deny the motions to seal.