SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited

Filing 749

ORDER granting 740 Motion to Seal Document - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/12/2018. (Tripp, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No.: 5:10-CV-25-FL SAS INSTITUTE INC., Plaintiff, v. WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant World Programming Limited’s (“WPL”) motion to file under seal the Notice of Supplemental Correspondence [D.E. 736] (collectively with exhibits, “Notice”) filed by SAS Institute Inc.1 Because the Notice contains information that is confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information of WPL, WPL asks that the Court allow SAS Institute to file the Notice under seal. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS WPL’s motion to file under seal. To determine whether to grant a request to seal a document, the court must consider whether “the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.” See Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984)). Although the common law presumes a right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents, denial of access is within the sound discretion of the court. Id. To determine whether a party’s interest in sealing records outweighs the public’s right to access, a court must engage in a three-part analysis: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object; (2) consider less drastic alternatives 1 WPL has submitted this motion in accordance with Section V(G) of the Court’s CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual and in response to SAS Institute’s Notice of Provisional Filing Under Seal dated February 8, 2018 [D.E. 739].

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?