Cross v. Topeka, Kansas, City of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JENNIFER CROSS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
)
v. ) No. 24-4092-KHV
)
CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On March 2, 2026, in support of its Memorandum In Support Of Defendant’s Motion For
Summary Judgment (Doc. #87), defendant filed provisionally under seal the Affidavit Of Alicia
Guerrero-Chavez along with 12 attachments (Doc. #88) and Plaintiff’s Responses To Defendant’s
First Request For Production of Documents To The Plaintiff, Jennifer Cross (Doc. #88-1). On
March 5, 2026, the Court directed the parties to show good cause in writing why the Court should
not immediately unseal the provisionally sealed documents. Order To Show Cause (Doc. #90) at
2. Defendant timely responded and seeks to redact from Alicia Guerrero-Chavez’s affidavit and
attached exhibits the names of two non-party employees. Defendant’s Response To Order To
Show Cause Dated March 9, 2026 (Doc. #91). Plaintiff did not respond. For reasons stated below,
the Court overrules defendant’s request.
Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). This right stems from the fundamental
public interest in understanding disputes that parties present to a public forum for resolution. See
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978); Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616
F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980). In determining whether documents should be sealed, the Court
Case 5:24-cv-04092-KHV Document 93 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
weighs the public interest, which it presumes is paramount, against the interests advanced by the
parties. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011). The party seeking to overcome
the presumption of public access must show that some significant interest which favors non-
disclosure outweighs the public interest in access to court proceedings and documents. Colony
Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012). To do so, the party must articulate a real
and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform the
Court’s decision-making process. Id.; see also Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16
(1981) (moving party must submit particular and specific facts, not merely “stereotyped and
conclusory statements”). The Court must rely on specific, rather than general, information when
deciding to seal. See United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1294 (10th Cir. 2020).
As noted, Defendant seeks to redact from Guerrero-Chavez’s affidavit and attached
exhibits the names of two non-party employees. Defendant’s Response To Order To Show Cause
Dated March 9, 2026 (Doc. #91) at 1. In the alternative, defendant requests permission to identify
the employees by using their initials or a number. Id. Defendant explains that the purpose of the
redactions is to “balance the public’s interest in understanding disputes in a public forum” while
not violating the confidentiality agreements with non-party employees concerning disciplinary
matters. Id. at 1–2.
Defendant relies on confidentiality agreements with two non-party employees, but it has
not submitted the agreements. The Court therefore cannot balance whether the interests in
maintaining confidentiality of the agreements outweighs the public interest in access to the
information. Defendant has not offered any other justification for redacting the employee names.
On this record, defendant has not met the heavy burden to articulate a real and substantial interest
which justifies depriving the public access to the records that inform the Court’s decision-making
Case 5:24-cv-04092-KHV Document 93 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
process. See Colony Ins., 698 F.3d at 1241. Therefore, the Court overrules defendant’s request
to redact the names of two non-party employees or to identify the employees using initials or
numbers.
Because neither party seeks to seal or redact Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s First
Request For Production of Documents To The Plaintiff, Jennifer Cross (Doc. #88-1), the Court
directs the Clerk to unseal that document.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s request to redact the names of two
non-party employees, or in the alternative, to use initials or numbers to identify the employees is
OVERRULED. The Court directs the Clerk to unseal the following provisionally sealed
documents: Affidavit Of Alicia Guerrero-Chavez and the 12 attachments to the affidavit
(Doc. #88) and Plaintiff’s Responses To Defendant’s First Request For Production of
Documents To The Plaintiff, Jennifer Cross (Doc. #88-1), both filed March 2, 2026.
Dated this 16th day of March, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-04092-KHV Document 93 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 3