Owens, et al v. Dixie Motor Company, et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting 89 Motion to Seal 74 PROPOSED SEALED Document, 78 PROPOSED SEALED Document, 81 PROPOSED SEALED Document, 79 PROPOSED SEALED Document, 71 Memorandum in Support, 82 PROPOSED SEALED Memorandum in Support - The documents do cket-numbered Dkt. # 71-2, Pages 24-74, 76, 78, 80, and 82; # 74 and 74-1 through 74-8; # 78; #79 and 79-1 through 79-9; # 81-1 through 81-2, and # 82-5 through 82-9 shall be maintained under seal in accordance with Section T of the Court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 09/18/2013. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
C.A. No. 5:12-cv-389-FL
)
ASHLEY OWENS and NINA OWENS,
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
vs.
)
)
DIXIE MOTOR COMPANY, JANET
)
PIERCE, ANTWAND CHERRY,
)
WESTERN SURETY CO., and
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, )
)
LLC,
Defendants. )
____________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS CAUSE being heard by the undersigned upon motion of Plaintiffs to seal
documents docket-numbered Dkt. # 71-2, Pages 24-74, 76, 78, 80, and 82; # 74 and 74-1
through 74-8; # 78; #79 and 79-1 through 79-9; # 81-1 through 81-2, and # 82-5 through
82-9, the Court finds as follows.
1. Counsel for Defendant Dixie Motor Company consents to the sealing of
documents docket-numbered Dkt. # 82-5 through 82-9.
2. Defendant Janet Pierce has herself also moved to seal documents docketnumbered Dkt. # 74 and 74-1 through 74-8; # 78; Dkt. #79 and 79-1 through
79-9; and Dkt. # 81-1 through 81-2.
3. Defendant Western Surety Co. has itself also moved to seal documents docketnumbered Dkt. # 71-2, Pages 24-74, 76, 78, 80, and 82.
4. Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Defendants for violations of the

Identity Theft Protection Act (N.C.G.S. 75-60, et seq.), violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.), unfair and deceptive trade
practices (N.C.G.S. 75-1.1, et seq.), negligence per se, breach of contract, and
infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. # 11, Amnd. Compl.)
5. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendants Dixie Motor Company and
Janet Pierce failed to maintain the security of Plaintiffs’ personal identifying
information and failed to dispose properly of Plaintiffs’ personal identifying
information.
6. Plaintiffs further allege that such failures caused an incarcerated criminal to
gain possession of said personal identifying information, which he then used to
harass and put both Plaintiffs in fear for their personal safety and financial
security
7. All parties have stipulated to a protective order to protect information marked
as “confidential” from public disclosure. (Dkt. # 46, Protective Order, 1).
8. The protective order defines “confidential information” as any document
containing the social security numbers, dates of birth, financial account
numbers, medical information or personal financial information of a party.
(Dkt. # 46, Protective Order, 2.)
9. All of the enumerated documents with the exception of Dkt. # 74 and Dkt. #79,
deposition transcripts, were previously marked as “CONFIDENTIAL.”
10. Portions of Dkt. # 74 and # 79 contain information of the types that the parties
had agreed in the protective order to protect as such and they were

inadvertently not marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”
11. After reviewing the memorandum and documents at issue, the court finds that
all contain confidential information where the risk of harm to Plaintiffs from
exposure of such information outweighs any public right to access, that the
information in the documents is personal identifying, financial, credit
reporting, and medical information that is not generally available to the public
or bearing any importance to any public matters, and that the the alternatives to
sealing are inadequate.
12. After publishing notice of the Motion to Seal of Plaintiffs, the Court has not
received any requests for public access to the records sought to be filed under
seal, nor any requests for access pursuant to alleged First Amendment rights.
13. The Court has considered alternatives to sealing the records outlined in
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal, but determines that the alternatives would not
adequately protect Plaintiffs from the potential of unauthorized and fraudulent
use of their personal identifying, financial, credit reporting, or medical
information by third parties.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the documents docket-numbered Dkt. #
71-2, Pages 24-74, 76, 78, 80, and 82; # 74 and 74-1 through 74-8; # 78; #79 and
79-1 through 79-9; # 81-1 through 81-2, and # 82-5 through 82-9 be filed and
maintained under seal in accordance with Section T of the Court’s Electronic Case
Filing Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual.

This the 18th day of September, 2013.

By: ________________________________
HON. LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge