Smith v. City of Kansas City, Missouri Board of Police Commissioners

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

WESTERN DIVISION

MONECIA SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 4:23-cv-00231-DGK

vs. )

)

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, )

BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE

UNDER SEAL

On July 20, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s Counsel Brian Klopfenstein to show cause

by July 28, 2023, why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the

Court’s inherent authority for filing a frivolous claim against Defendant Judge Margene Burnett

and misrepresenting to the Court that she did not consent to removal. Show Cause Order, ECF

No. 35. On July 28, 2023, Mr. Klopfenstein filed a redacted version of his response. ECF No. 42.

Now before the Court is Mr. Klopfenstein’s motion to file his response to the show cause order

under seal.1 ECF No. 43. Although not explicitly stated, the Court presumes he is requesting to

file the unredacted version under seal.

There is a common law presumption that judicial records are open to the public. Nixon v.

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th

Cir. 2002). This presumption may be overcome only by showing a compelling need to seal

documents, such as if the court’s files “have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” or if the

documents in question reveal trade secrets or could compromise someone’s personal safety.

1 Mr. Klopfenstein filed this motion under seal without leave of court. The Court will be unsealing the motion.

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see, e.g., IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (8th Cir. 2013)

(finding a company’s “confidential and competitively sensitive information” warranted sealing the

complaint); Goff v. Graves, 362 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognizing the protection of a

confidential informant as a compelling government interest justifying the reception of evidence

under seal). Ultimately, in determining whether to seal documents, the Court must balance “the

interests served by the common-law right of access . . . against the salutary interests served by

maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.” IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1223.

Mr. Klopfenstein has failed to rebut the presumption in favor of openness here. He wants

to seal his response because it “may reveal trial strategy or other thoughts which should not be

shared with the opposing side,” and he “is concerned that the opposing side may be able to use

[the] information.” Mot. at 1 (emphasis added). For starters, it is unclear what information he

wants to keep from Defendants. The motion is vague, and the Court was not given an unredacted

version of his response. Additionally, the motion fails to cite controlling caselaw outlining the

Court’s authority to seal such a response. See Local Rule 7.0(a) (requiring written motions to

contain “relevant facts and applicable law”). And lastly, given the limited nature of the Show

Cause Order, the Court fails to see why he needs to include trial strategies and sensitive thoughts

in his response or how that information would advantage Defendants at this point given the Court

already dismissed Defendant Burnett and denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Thus, the motion is DENIED. Mr. Klopfenstein shall file the unredacted version of his

response on or before August 3, 2023. No additional extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 1, 2023 /s/ Greg Kays

GREG KAYS, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT