Filed: Feb. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2014
Summary: OPINION & ORDER (AMENDED) [Resolving Doc. No. 138] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In this qui tam action, Defendants Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering Corporation, Kellogg, Brown & Root International, Inc., and Halliburton Company (collectively, "KBR") move this Court to file Exhibit 3 to their Opposition to Relator's Motion to Compel under seal. While the Court has discretion to seal filings where appropriate
Summary: OPINION & ORDER (AMENDED) [Resolving Doc. No. 138] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In this qui tam action, Defendants Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering Corporation, Kellogg, Brown & Root International, Inc., and Halliburton Company (collectively, "KBR") move this Court to file Exhibit 3 to their Opposition to Relator's Motion to Compel under seal. While the Court has discretion to seal filings where appropriate,..
More
OPINION & ORDER (AMENDED)
[Resolving Doc. No. 138]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this qui tam action, Defendants Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering Corporation, Kellogg, Brown & Root International, Inc., and Halliburton Company (collectively, "KBR") move this Court to file Exhibit 3 to their Opposition to Relator's Motion to Compel under seal.
While the Court has discretion to seal filings where appropriate, "the general presumption [is] that court documents are to be available to the public."1
The Court's earlier order allowed the parties to designate as "confidential" documents they deem confidential. After reviewing Exhibit 3 and weighing the factors, the Court finds the Defendants' interest does not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings.2 The Court notes Defendants admit that they do not consider the information to be confidential.
Thus, the Court thus DENIES the Defendants' motion to file Exhibit 3 to their Opposition to Relator's Motion to Compel under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
