Slivka v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Pikes Peak Region
390 F. Supp. 3d 1283
| D. Colo. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff sued Lozano (assault, battery, negligence) and the YMCA (sex discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation).
- YMCA moved for a pretrial gag order restricting parties and counsel from releasing information to media/public, citing limited pretrial publicity and concern about jury prejudice.
- YMCA also filed an unopposed motion to restrict public access to the proceedings and to seal certain docket items (complaint, YMCA’s motions) under D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.2(c).
- YMCA submitted evidence of three media items and several social media posts and noted plaintiff’s counsel had given at least one interview.
- The court evaluated whether (1) a gag order was justified under prior-restraint standards and (2) a motion to restrict access satisfied Local Rule 7.2(c) prerequisites.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pretrial gag order is warranted to prevent prejudicial publicity | Opposed to gag order (argued in response) | YMCA: media coverage and social posts create reasonable likelihood of jury prejudice; gag order needed | Denied — publicity is minimal, speculative, and manageable by less-restrictive means; prior restraint not justified |
| Whether entire proceedings should be sealed / restricted | Plaintiff did not oppose sealing but public access presumption remains | YMCA: whole proceedings should be closed or at least certain documents restricted to Level 1 | Denied — parties’ agreement insufficient; no legal basis shown to close entire proceedings |
| Whether specific docket items (complaint, motions) should be restricted to Level 1 | Plaintiff did not object to restriction motion but court requires rule compliance | YMCA: complaint and certain motions contain defamatory/scandalous allegations warranting sealing | Denied — YMCA failed to identify a clearly defined, serious injury and did not show alternatives are inadequate; also failed to follow local rule filing procedures |
| Whether YMCA satisfied D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.2(c) requirements for restricting documents | N/A | YMCA: asserted harm to reputation and jury pool without specific injury or practicable alternatives | Denied — did not meet burden to justify overcoming public-access presumption; could seek Rule 12(f) or Rule 11 remedies instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (establishes heavy burden for prior restraints and factors for gag orders)
- United States v. Tijerina, 412 F.2d 661 (10th Cir. 1969) (gag order permissible only with reasonable likelihood of prejudicial publicity)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes common-law public right of access to judicial records)
- In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (public access fosters values like respect for the legal system)
- United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) (documents may be restricted when public access is outweighed by competing interests)