MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Under Seal A Certain Exhibit To Their Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Final Approval Of Class Action Settlements ("Motion For Leave To Seal") (Doc. #4837) filed June 8, 2015. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules the motion.

Legal Standards

Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). This right derives from the public's interest in understanding disputes that are presented to a public forum for resolution and is intended to ensure that courts are fair and judges are honest. Crystal Grower's Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980); Worford v. City of Topeka, No. 03-2450-JWL, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2004). The public's right of access, however, is not absolute. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292. The Court therefore has discretion to seal documents if competing interests outweigh the public's right of access. Id.; United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). In exercising its discretion, the Court weighs the public's interests, which it presumes are paramount, against those advanced by the parties. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; Dobbins, 616 F.2d at 461. The party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access to the documents bears the burden of showing that some significant interest outweighs the presumption. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. The Court should seal documents based only on articulable facts known to the Court, and not based on unsupported hypothesis or conjecture. Worford, 2004 WL 316073, at *1; Stapp v. Overnite Transp. Co., No. 96-2320-GTV, 1998 WL 229538, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 1998.

Analysis

Plaintiffs seek to file under seal Exhibit 51 to Plaintiffs' Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Final Approval Of Class Action Settlements ("Motion For Final Settlement Approval") (Doc. #4834) filed June 8, 2015.1 In support of the motion, plaintiffs state that defendants designated the document as "Confidential" under the Court's Protective Order (Doc. #417) filed April 21, 2008.2 Plaintiffs state they in no way concede that the document contains sensitive business information which warrants confidential treatment and that they reserve the right to contest the confidentiality designation at a later date. See Motion For Leave To Seal (Doc. #4837) at 1. Defendants did not respond to the motion.

The fact that defendants designated the document as "confidential" under the protective order does not in itself provide sufficient reason to seal. See Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. v. BioMedix Vascular Solutions, Inc., No. 11-4093-SAC, 2012 WL 884926, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2012); Carfusion 213, LLC v. Prof'l Disposables, Inc., No. 09-2616-KHV, 2010 WL 2653643, at *1 (D. Kan. June 29, 2010). As provided in the protective order, the party seeking confidential protection bears the burden to establish the grounds for confidential treatment. See Protective Order (Doc. #417) ¶¶ 11, 19. On this record, defendants have not met the heavy burden to articulate a real and substantial interest which justifies depriving the public access to records which inform the Court's decision-making process. See Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Under Seal A Certain Exhibit To Their Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Final Approval Of Class Action Settlements (Doc. #4837) filed June 8, 2015 be and hereby is OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 28, 2015, plaintiffs shall file Exhibit 51 to Plaintiffs' Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Final Approval Of Class Action Settlements (Doc. #4834) filed June 8, 2015.