United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED VERSIONS OF DOCUMENTS
STEWART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Four Corners Health Care
Corporation and Four Corners Health Care's (collectively
“Defendants”) Motion to Substitute Redacted
Versions of Documents, filed October 14, 2019. This Motion is in
reference to a case dismissed on December 1,
2016. For the reasons discussed below, the Court
will deny the Motion.
seek substitution of documents on the Court's docket with
alternate versions that redact patient names. As Defendants
point out, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 requires that
a person or entity who submits a court filing containing
“an individual's social-security number,
taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an
individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account
number” redact certain information. The patient names
that Defendants seek to redact are not included among the
protected information types listed under Rule 5.2, and
Defendants did not redact these names when originally
submitting their filings.The Court has no information to suggest
any of the relevant patient names are for minors. While
Defendants point to language in the local rules that
“[t]he court may order redaction of additional personal
identifiers by motion and order in a specific case or as to a
specific document or documents, ” they do not
provide justification for the Court to take such an action.
local rules note that “[t]he records of the court are
presumptively open to the public. . . . Unless restricted by
statute or court order, the public shall have access to all
documents filed with the court and to all court
proceedings.” The local rules further elaborate that
“[o]n motion of a party and a showing of good cause, a
judge may order that a Document be
sealed.” These rules consistently reflect a strong
policy interest in preserving public access to complete court
have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial
records.” While not an absolute right, there is a
“strong presumption in favor of public
access.” “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.” This presumption is one of access to
complete court documents. Absent any showing of an
interest that outweighs presumptive public disclosure, the
Court cannot favor redaction.
that Defendants' Motion to Substitute Redacted Versions
of Documents (Docket No. 186) is DENIED.
 Docket No. 186.
See Docket No. 185.