
    UNITED STATES of America EX REL. Harry BARKO, Plaintiff, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
    CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01276
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.
    February 21, 2014
    Anthony C. Munter, Price Benowitz, LLP, David K. Colapinto, Michael David Kohn, Stephen M. Kohn, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
    Craig D. Margolis, Tirzah S. Lollar, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, John Martin Faust, Law Offices of John M. Faust, PLLC, Alden Lewis Atkins, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, John Randall Warden, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel
    H. Bromberg, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Christine H. Chung, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christopher Tayback, Scott L. Watson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
   OPINION & ORDER (AMENDED)

[Resolving Doc. No. 138]

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.”

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 proceedings. 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. 
      
      . In re Pepco Employment Litig., No. 86-0603, 1992 WL 115611, at *5-7 (D.D.C. May, 8 1992).
     
      
      . “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).
     