Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Hanover Regional Medical Center
Filing
142
ORDER granting 126 and 132 Motions to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/20/2012. (Sawyer, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No.7:09-CV-85-D
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW HANOVER REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Defendant and plaintiff each have filed an unopposed motion to seal [D.E. 126, 132]. As
explained below, the court grants the motions.
This case involves alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 ("ADA") on behalf of certain charging parties, as well as similarly situated applicants and
employees, who were allegedly adversely affected by defendant's employment practices.
Plaintiff contends that defendant unlawfully denied hire or placed on unpaid leave applicants and
employees, including the charging parties, who were taking legally prescribed narcotic
medication(s). Defendant denies violating the ADA.
Defendant's motion to seal requests, pursuant to the Joint Consent Protective Order
("protective order") [D.E. 26], that the following seven documents be placed under seal:
1. Third Affidavit of Jerry Burleson in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment, with attachments [D.E. 118 and attachments];
2. Affidavit of Scott Simpson in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 119 and attachments];
3. Affidavit of Sara Hejnas in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 120];
4. Affidavit of Gloria June Wooten Sloan in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment [D.E. 121];
5. Affidavit of Lisa Wicks in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 122];
6. Affidavit of Emily A. Pacheco in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 123-125 and attachments]; and
7. Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
[D.E.117].
Plaintiff's motion to seal requests that the following thirty documents be placed under
seal pursuant to the protective order:
1. Selected Portions of Jerry Burleson Second Deposition filed in support of
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 130-2];
2. Selected Portions of Dr. Howard Armistead Second Deposition filed in
support of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 130-3];
3. Selected Portions of Donna Cox Allen Deposition filed in support of
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 130-4];
4. Donna Cox Allen Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiff's Memorandum
in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-5];
5. Selected Portions of Dentral Boykin Deposition filed in support of Plaintiff's
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-6];
6. Dentral Boykin Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiff's Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-7];
7. Selected Portions of Vineta Bryant Deposition filed in support of Plaintiff's
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
[D.E. 130-8];
2
8. Selected Portions of Tiara Murphy-Butler Deposition filed in support of
Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 130-9];
9. Selected Portions of Luanne Davis Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-10];
10. Luanne Davis Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-11];
11. Luanne Davis Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiff s Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-12];
12. Selected Portions of Julia Evans-Flood Deposition filed in support of
Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 130-13];
13. Julia Evans-Flood Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-14];
14. Selected Portions of Eleanor Halbleib Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-15];
15. Selected Portions of Kristin Johnson Deposition filed in support of Plaintiff s
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-16];
16. Kristin Johnson Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiff s Memorandum
in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-17];
17. Selected Portions of Carolyn Lewis Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-18];
18. Selected Portions of Gloria McLean Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-19];
3
19. Selected Portions of Tara McNeil Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-20];
20. Tara McNeil Employee Health Note filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-21];
21. Tara McNeil Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiff s Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-22];
22. Robin Kitchens Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-23];
23. Jessica Youde Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-24];
24. Shirley Dailey Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-25];
25. Michael Spear Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-26];
26. Regina Draughon Declaration filed in support of Plaintiff s Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E.
130-27];
27. Selected Portions of Burwell Manor Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-28];
28. Selected Portions of Gail Ferretti Deposition filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-29];
29. Exhibit 31 - Carolyn Lewis Payroll Records filed in support of Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [D.E. 130-30];
4
30. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment [D.E. 130].
Before granting a motion to seal, courts must first give the public notice and a reasonable
opportunity to challenge the motion and then examine the public's right to access in conformity
with governing precedent.
See,~,
Stone v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp.,
855 F.2d 178, 180-81 (4th Cir. 1988). If a court finds that the public's right to access is
outweighed by another significant interest, then the court must consider whether there are less
drastic alternatives to sealing. Id. To further this directive, this court has promulgated Local
Rules and procedures related to the filing of sealed material. See Local Civil Rule 79.2, EDNC;
Elec. Case Filing Admin. Policies & Procedures Manual § T(1)(a)I-7 (Rev. Jan. 25, 2010).
Pursuant to these rules and procedures, the parties must specify the following:
(i) the exact document or item, or portions thereof, for which
filing under seal is requested;
(ii) how such request to seal overcomes the common law or
the First Amendment presumption to access;
(iii) the specific qualities of the material at issue which
justify sealing such material, taking into account the
balance of competing interest in access;
(iv) the reasons why alternatives to sealing are inadequate;
and
(v) whether there is consent to the motion.
Elec. Case Filing Admin. Policies & Procedures Manual § T(1)(a)l.
Here, pursuant to the court's protective order, the parties filed these motions to seal
concerning documents that reference sensitive medical information and employment
information, including financial information, of the charging parties and others identified by
plaintiff as class members. See [D.E. 26]
~~
1, 5. The parties have represented to the court, in
5
detail with respect to each proposed sealed document, that each document contains or references
medical information or confidential employment-related information regarding the individuals
identified by plaintiff as charging parties or class members in this matter. The parties contend
that the right to privacy of the confidential and personal information of nonparties justifies
keeping these documents under seal and outweighs the presumption to access.
Each party
consents to the other's motion to seal.
Based on the court's review of the proposed sealed documents, all of the documents in
question contain confidential and personal information of nonparties, which justifies keeping
these documents under seal. This risk of harm to these individuals outweighs any public right to
access, and the alternatives to sealing are inadequate. Public notice was given through the filing
of the parties' motions to seal, and no challenge to the motions has been filed despite a
reasonable opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the parties' motions to seal are granted.
In sum, defendant's motion to seal [D.E. 126] and plaintiffs motion to seal [D.E. 132]
are GRANTED. Accordingly, the following documents shall be designated as SEALED: D.E.
117, 118 and attachments, 119 and attachments, 120-22, 123 and attachments, 124 and
attachments, 125 and attachments, and 130 and attachments 130-2 through 130-30.
SO ORDERED. This..ao. day of September 2012.
Chie United States District Judge
6
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?