Cox v. Sunflower County Consolidated School District

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Motion to Seal Document 18 Answer to Complaint; that the Clerk shall seal discovery responses inadvertently filed as an Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 3/31/17. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JOHN COX
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:16-CV-192- DMB-JMV

SUNFLOWER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks an order allowing inadvertently filed discovery responses to be sealed.
[20] Motion to Seal. Plaintiff intended to file with the Court a Notice of Service of Discovery,
but Plaintiff’s counsel’s office mistakenly filed the Responses to discovery along with
accompanying documents, which included Plaintiff’s tax returns and other personal information.
See [18]. The court has been informed that counsel for Defendant has no objection to sealing of
the discovery responses filed at [18]
Local Rule 79(b) specifies that “any order sealing a document must include
particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons
and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons.” L.U. Civ. R. 79(b). To determine whether to
allow the sealing of a requested document, “the court must balance the public's common law
right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990
F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). Upon weighing the competing interests, the undersigned finds that
Plaintiff has provided clear and compelling reasons for sealing the discovery responses that were
inadvertently filed on the docket.
The discovery responses contain Plaintiff’s tax returns and other personal and
confidential information. The court has reviewed the discovery responses, and found that they

contain Plaintiff’s social security number and driver’s license number, which should have been
redacted in any filings with the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Having reviewed the motion, as well as the docket, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
that the Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED pursuant to L.U. CIV. R. 79. It is further ordered that
the clerk shall seal the discovery responses, which were inadvertently filed as an Answer, located
at [18] until further order of this Court.
SO ORDERED, this, the 31st day of March, 2017.

___/s/ Jane M. Virden_________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE