Jefferies et al v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ELLSWORTH WILLIAM JEFFERIES III, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
)
v. 	) 	No. 25-2352-KHV
)
HARCROS CHEMICALS INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc.’s Motion to File
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Under Seal (Doc. #156) filed March 27,
2026. Defendant seeks to redact portions of Harcros Chemicals Inc.’s Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. #142) and Declaration of John P. Cleary (Doc. #142-1), both
filed provisionally under seal on March 20, 2026. Defendant claims that its response and exhibit
reveal the specific locations of sensitive documents that contain details on its critical infrastructure.
Plaintiffs did not respond. 	For reasons stated below, however, the Court overrules defendant’s
motion.
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
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
Case 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM Document 167 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
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).
Defendant seeks to redact references which allegedly reveal specific locations of sensitive
documents. The documents in question do not reveal “specific” locations, however, and defendant
does not explain how disclosure of general locations “could compromise the security of [its]
critical infrastructure.” 	Defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc.’s Motion to File Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Under Seal (Doc. #156) at 1. The facility discussed
in defendant’s motion is its principal place of business and corporate headquarters—exactly where
one would expect to find sensitive documents. The response and exhibit do not identify precise
locations where the documents can be found. In addition, as defendant’s consultant notes in his
Declaration (Doc. #142-1), many of the boxes and file cabinets which contain defendant’s
documents are unlabeled or generically labeled. 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 process. 	See Colony Ins., 698 F.3d at 1241.
Therefore, the Court overrules defendant’s motion to redact the documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc.’s Motion to File
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Under Seal (Doc. #156) filed March 27,
Case 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM Document 167 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
2026 is OVERRULED. 	The Court directs the Clerk to unseal the following provisionally
sealed documents: Harcros Chemicals Inc.’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel (Doc. #142), Declaration of John P. Cleary (Doc. #142-1) and Declaration of
Courtney Harrison (Doc. #142-2), all filed March 20, 2026.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM Document 167 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 3