Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.Com, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
OVERSTOCK.COM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-2324-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Overstock.com, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
Documents (Doc. 237). Defendant asks the Court to seal three exhibits attached to its
memorandum in support of attorney’s fees, and to allow redacted versions of two documents. As
described below, the Court grants the motion.
I. Standard
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”1 This
right is based on the public’s interest “in understanding disputes that are presented to a public
forum for resolution” and “in assuring that the courts are fairly run and judges are honest.”2 This
right of access, however, “is not absolute.”3 The Court may, in its discretion, “seal documents if
the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.”4 “The party seeking to
overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs
1 Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149
(10th Cir. 2007)).
2 Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980).
3 Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292 (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149).
4 Id. (quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)).
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 238 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
the presumption.”5 The Court must be mindful that “where documents are used to determine
litigants’ substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches.”6
Under D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c), a party moving to seal must provide: (1) “a description of
the specific portions of the document” that the Proponent wants to seal or redact, which is
“narrowly tailored to the asserted confidentiality interest”; (2) the asserted confidentiality interest
and why it outweighs the presumption of public access; (3) “a clearly defined and serious injury
that would result in the absence of restricting public access”; and (4) “why no lesser alternative is
practicable or why restricting public access will adequately protect the confidentiality interest in
question.”7
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Seal Docs. 235-13, 235-14, and 235-16 (Exhibits 12, 13, and 15)
Defendant moves to seal three exhibits attached to its memorandum in support of its
motion for attorney’s fees.8 Doc. 235-13 (Ex. 12) includes summary tables of timekeeper fees
requested, broken down by hours and rates.9 Docs. 235-14 and 235-15 (Exs. 13 and 14) are
billing records and invoices that include descriptions of each timekeeper’s time spent on the
client matter. Defendant argues that its interest in maintaining the confidentiality of these
documents outweighs the public’s right of access because the billing records reveal attorney
work product, including legal strategy and research conducted in connection with the litigation.
5 Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).
6 Colony Ins. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1242 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006)).
7 D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c)(1)–(4).
8 Doc. 235.
9 Doc. 235-13.
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 238 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
The Court has reviewed these exhibits and agrees that the billing records include attorney
work product. The Tenth Circuit has recognized that attorney billing records and time sheets
may be protected by the work product doctrine.10 The billing records should be permanently
sealed because Defendant’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its work product
outweighs the public’s right of access.
Defendant asks the Court to allow it to redact from its brief in support of the motion for
fees and costs, and from Michael Ellis’s Declaration, references to the billing record
information from Exhibits 12, 13, and 15. Defendant submitted its proposed redactions in
compliance with D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c). The Court has reviewed these redactions and agrees
that they appropriately redact references to the sealed exhibits. Thus, Defendant is directed to
publicly file these redacted documents. The provisionally-filed memorandum and the Ellis
Declaration shall be permanently sealed.
B. Documents to be Unsealed
Other than the documents discussed above, no party has filed a motion to seal the
remaining provisionally-sealed attachments to Doc. 235, and the time to do so is expired.11
Therefore, pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(d), the Clerk is directed to unseal Docs. 235-2, 235-3,
235-4, 235-5, 235-6, 235-7, 235-8, 235-9, 235-10, 235-11, 235-12, 235-15, 235-17, and 235-18.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Overstock.com,
Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 237) is granted. The Clerk shall
permanently seal Docs. 235, 235-1, 235-13, 235-14, and 235-16. Defendant is directed to
publicly file the redacted versions of Docs. 235 and 235-1.
10 Team Sys. Int’l, LLC v. Haozous, 706 F. App’x 463, 466 (10th Cir. 2017).
11 See D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c) (providing a seven-day deadline after the document is filed provisionally under
seal to file a motion to seal).
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 238 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk is directed to unseal
Docs. 235-2, 235-3, 235-4, 235-5, 235-6, 235-7, 235-8, 235-9, 235-10, 235-11, 235-12, 235-15,
235-17, and 235-18.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2026
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 238 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 4