Randa v. Sessions

Filing 45

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/15/2019. (Collins, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 5:18-CV-19-FL
CARRIE D. RANDA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR,
Attorney General of U.S.
Department of Justice,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Seal Excerpts of Defendant’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed by
Defendant, William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the U.S. Department
of Justice, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.2. Defendant seeks leave to file under seal limited
excerpts of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the SAC.
Specifically, Defendant seeks permission to redact the names of any alleged comparator
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (“AUSAs”) contained in Defendant’s Opposition and the exhibit
attached thereto, a declaration provided by Sherry Bowden, Human Resources Officer for the
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina (“USAO”). Plaintiff does not
oppose Defendant’s request to redact the names of alleged comparator AUSAs in filings with the
Court. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED:
1.

The common law and the First Amendment protect the public’s right of access to

judicial records. Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988).

Page 1 of 3

Under the common law, the public enjoys a presumptive right to inspect and copy judicial
records and documents. Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978)). This presumption, however, may be overcome if competing interests outweigh the
public’s interest in access. Id. Where access to judicial documents is protected by the First
Amendment, “access may be denied only on the basis of a compelling governmental interest, and
only if the denial is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. The First Amendment guarantee
of access has been extended to only particular judicial records and documents, such as
documents filed in connection with a summary judgment motion in a civil case. Id. (citing
Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). The First
Amendment presumption of access applies to the documents at issue in this case.
2.

The information contained in Defendant’s Opposition and supporting declaration

concerning the alleged comparator AUSAs originates from employment records maintained by
the USAO, which are protected from disclosure under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, absent
application of one of several exceptions authorizing disclosure set forth in the statute. 5 U.S.C. §
552a(b). The government has a compelling interest in ensuring compliance with the Privacy Act
in connection with its filings, and in ensuring that it refrains from publicly disclosing protected
employment information concerning the alleged comparator AUSAs, all of whom are nonmanagerial employees and are not accused of discrimination or retaliation by Plaintiff. The
proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect this important interest, as they conceal the
specific identity of each alleged comparator AUSA while still providing the public with access to
information to determine whether, as Plaintiff alleges, other similarly situated individuals at the
USAO outside Plaintiff’s protected class were treated differently than Plaintiff to such a degree
that Plaintiff may state a plausible discrimination claim. Additionally, viewing the proposed
Page 2 of 3

redactions in light of the overall content of Defendant’s Opposition, “[t]he proposed redactions
are modest, leaving much of the content intact.” Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Am. Capital, Ltd.,
Civ. No. 09-0100, 2015 WL 1242684, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2015) (unpublished). Under such
circumstances, the proposed redactions are reasonable and will be accepted. See id.
SO ORDERED:
15th
March
This _____ day of ________________________, 2019

____________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3