UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
-------------------------------------------------------
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
ex rel. Harry Barko, : CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01276
:
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. : OPINION & ORDER (AMENDED)
: [Resolving Doc. No. 138]
HALLIBURTON COMPANY, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------
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
1/
In re Pepco Employment Litig., No. 86–0603, 1992 WL 115611, at *5–7 (D.D.C. May, 8 1992).
-1-
Case No. 1:05-CV-01276
Gwin, J.
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.
Dated: February 21, 2014 s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/
“These factors include: (1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent to which the
public had access to the documents prior to the sealing order; (3) the fact that a party has objected to disclosure and the
identity of that party; (4) the strength of the property and privacy interests involved; (5) the possibility of prejudice to
those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced.” See Johnson v. Greater Se.
Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277–78 (D.C.Cir.1991).
-2-