SC Industrial Holdings v. American Defense Technologies et al, No. 4:2022cv00075 - Document 169 (D. Utah 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 161 Motion to Redact 161 135 Transcript. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler on 4/16/24 (alt)

Download PDF
SC Industrial Holdings v. American Defense Technologies et al Doc. 169 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH SC INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability Company, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDACT TRANSCRIPT Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM JOSEPH CARA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM UICKER, a Utah Citizen; and ALEXIS MCPHEETERS, a Utah Citizen, Case No. 4:22-cv-00075-DN-PK District Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendant William Uicker’s Motion to Redact Transcript. 1 Defendant seeks to redact portions of the transcript from a hearing held on November 1, 2023. “The records of the court are presumptively open to the public. The sealing of . . . documents or portions thereof . . . is highly discouraged.” 2 “‘The party seeking to overcome the presumption’ of public access to [court] documents ‘bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.’” 3 The party seeking to seal a 1 Docket No. 161, filed March 15, 2024. 2 DUCivR 5-3(a)(1). 3 Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com document or, in this case redact portions thereof, must “state the statute, rule, case law, or reason supporting the sealing of the” transcript. 4 DUCivR 5.2-1(a) requires that “[a] party must redact the personal identifiers listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in every court filing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2’s redaction requirement applies to (1) social-security numbers or taxpayer-identification numbers; (2) an individual’s birthdate; (3) a minor’s name; and (4) financial-account numbers. None of the redactions requested by Mr. Uicker fit within these parameters and he has failed to overcome the “presumption that judicial records should be open to the public.” 5 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Redact Transcript (Docket No. 161) is DENIED. Dated this 16th day of April, 2024. __________________________ PAUL KOHLER United States Magistrate Judge 4 DUCivR 5-3(b)(2)(C). 5 United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.