govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_26-cv-02272-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
PHILLIP FRANKLYN VANCE-MEYERS, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION 
 ) 
v. ) No. 26-2272-KHV 
 ) 
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
____________________________________________) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on plai ntiff’s Motion For Prot ective Order (To File 
Evidence Under Seal – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) (Doc. #17) filed May 18, 2026 and his supplemental 
Motion For Leave To File Evidence Under Seal (Doc. #20-2) filed May 25, 2026. For reasons 
stated below, the Court overrules both motions. 
 Federal courts have long recognized a commo n-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 whet her 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 
the presumption of public access must show that some significant interest which favors non-
disclosure outweighs the public interest in acces s 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 th e public of access to the records that inform the 

 
 
 
 
 
-2- 
 
 
Court’s decision-making process. Id.; see al so Gulf Oil Co. v. Bern ard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 
(1981) (moving party must submit particular and specific f acts, 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). 
 Plaintiff seeks to file unde r seal his “master evidence catalog” which consists of 
230 exhibits and includes sensitive personal information and trial strategy. Motion For Leave To 
File Evidence Under Seal (Doc. #20-2) at 4; Motion For Protective Order (To File Evidence Under 
Seal – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) (Doc. #17) at 1. Plaintiff has not included the “master evidence 
catalog” with his motions to seal. From the limited excerpts of the catalog available elsewhere in 
the record, it appears that the catalog includes a summary of exhibits which plaintiff ultimately 
intends to present at trial an d does not contain sensitive pers onal information which is not 
otherwise disclosed in plaintif f’s complaint. See Master Ev idence Catalog (Doc. #11-2) filed 
May 14, 2026 (37 pages). Plaintiff does not explain how the exhibits relate to his complaint, which 
the magistrate judge is curre ntly screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under notice 
pleading requirements, plaintiff must provide “a short and plain st atement of the claim” showing 
that he is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), to give defendants fair notice of his claims and 
the grounds upon which they rest. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The notice pleading 
standard in Rule 8(a) relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define 
disputed facts and issues and to dispose of non-meritorious claims. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 
534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). At this preliminary stage, plaintiff must adequately plead his claims—
he does not have to submit evidence in support of any such claims. Because plaintiff has not 
shown a need to file a “master evidence catalog” or that he has an interest in protection of the 
information in the catalog which outweighs the public right of access, the Court overrules his 

 
 
 
 
 
-3- 
 
 
request to file the catalog under seal.
1 
 Plaintiff also seeks to file under seal a “second supplemental memorandum” in support of 
his Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #4) 
filed May 7, 2026. Plaintiff ha s not attached his proposed memorandum or explained how any 
information in the memorandum overcomes the presumption of public access. Plaintiff states that 
the memorandum should be sealed because it “ref erences and incorporates the sealed evidence 
catalog.” Motion For Protective Order (To File Evidence Under Seal – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) (Doc. 
#17) at 2. As noted above, plaintif f has not attached the catalog to his motions to seal. To the 
extent that information in plaintiff’s “evidence catalog” could be relevant to the ruling on his 
motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, he has not met the heavy burden 
to articulate a real and substantial interest which justifies depriving the public access to the records 
which inform the Court’s decision-making process. See Colony Ins., 698 F.3d at 1242. The Court 
therefore overrules plaintiff’s motions to seal. 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion For Protective Order (To File 
Evidence Under Seal – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) (Doc. #17) filed May 18, 2026 is OVERRULED. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s supplementa l Motion For Leave To File 
Evidence Under Seal (Doc. #20-2) filed May 25, 2026 is OVERRULED. 
 Dated this 1st day of June, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas. 
 s / K a t h r y n H . V r a t i l 
 KATHRYN H. VRATIL 
 United States District Judge 
 
1 To the extent that plai ntiff seeks a protective orde r for information which he 
produces during discovery, the Cour t overrules his request as premat ure. If the case survives 
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and pr oceeds to an initial scheduling conference, 
plaintiff can renew his request at that time. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight