Howard v. College of the Albemarle et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 40 Motion to Seal Document - Exhibit 53 to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 39) shall be placed under seal; denying without prejudice 64 Motion to Seal; granting 65 Motion to Seal Document - Howards Memorandum of L aw in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 58) and his Opposing Statement of Facts (D.E. 59) shall be placed under seal; denying as moot 66 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II on 11/29/2016. Sent to Robert Howard at 309 N Estes Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 via US Mail. (Briggeman, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:15-CV-00039-D
Robert Howard,
Plaintiff,
v.

Order

College of Albemarle & Kandi
Deitemeyer,
Defendants.

Currently pending before the court are three motions to seal various documents in this
case. The first motion, filed by Defendants College of Albemarle and Kandi Deitemeyer,
requests that the court seal an exhibit to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment that
contains Plaintiff Robert Howard’s medical records. D.E. 40. The second motion, filed by
Howard, requests that the court seal various deposition transcripts, affidavits, and other
documents. D.E. 64. The third motion, also filed by Howard, requests that the court seal various
documents related to his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. D.E. 66. The
motions to seal are all either unopposed (D.E. 40, 64) or the non-moving party consents to the
relief sought (D.E. 65, 66). Defendants also request that the court strike Howard’s responses to
their Motion for Summary Judgment and require him to re-file the document after redacting
confidential personnel information related to Deitemeyer. D.E. 66.
The court has reviewed the motions to seal under the governing standard. See, e.g., Doe
v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 272–73 (4th Cir. 2014). The public has had notice of the sealing
request and a reasonable opportunity to respond. See id. at 272. No member of the public has
responded.
With respect to the first and third motions, the court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing, but does not find that any less drastic alternative exists. Id. Moreover, the
court finds that the parties have demonstrated that the materials at issue include protected health
information and information that is confidential under North Carolina law, see N.C. Gen. Stat. §
115D-29. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant the first and third motions to seal.
With respect to the second motion, Howard has failed to demonstrate that there is a need
to seal the documents in question. His motion simply lists documents that he would like to have
sealed and asserts that sealing is necessary “in order to protect the confidentiality and privacy of
the persons named in them.” D.E. 65 at 1. This blanket assertion is insufficient to justify
restricting the public’s access to these documents. Therefore, the second motion to seal is denied.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Seal (D.E. 40) is granted. Exhibit 53 to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 39) shall be placed under seal.
2.

Howard’s First Motion to Seal (D.E. 64) is denied without prejudice.

3.
Howard’s Second Motion to Seal (D.E. 65) is granted. Howard’s Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 58) and his Opposing
Statement of Facts (D.E. 59) shall be placed under seal.
4.
Howard shall file a redacted copy of his Response Memorandum and Opposing
Statement within seven days from the date of this order. Specifically, he shall redact all
references to information from Deitemeyer’s evaluations contained at pages 9–11 of the
Response Memorandum and pages 7–9 of the Opposing Statement.
5.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (D.E. 66) is denied as

moot.
Dated:
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2