Fulmore et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain DE-68 and the attached exhibits under seal. On or before March 20,2013, Plaintiffs are directed to file a redacted version of their supplemental brief into the public record. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 3/13/2013. (Edwards, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:11-CV-18-F
NICHELE FULMORE, H. RONALD
REVELS III, and RONALD C. JONES,

Plaintiffs,
v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' motion to seal [DE-69], in which Plaintiffs seek
leave to file their supplemental brief opposing summary judgment and attached exhibits [DE-68] under
seal. Plaintiffs state that the supplemental brief and attached exhibits include information from the
personnel files of Defendant's employees who are not party to this litigation, and therefore should be
placed under seal. Plaintiffs include a statement in their motion indicating that the attorney for
Defendant has been contacted and consents to the filing of DE-68 under seal.

The court also notes

that, although the motion has been pending for several weeks, no member of the public has acted to
challenge Plaintiffs' request to seal.
"The common law presumes a right of the public to inspect and copy all judicial records and
documents. This presumption of access, however, can be rebutted if countervailing interests heavily
outweigh the public interests in access, and the party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the
burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption." Va. Dept. ofState Police
v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004) (quotations and alteration omitted). "In contrast

to the common law, the First Amendment guarantee of access has been extended only to particular

judicial records and documents. When the First Amendment provides a right of access, a district court
may restrict access only on the basis of a compelling governmental interest, and only if the denial is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. (quotations omitted).
To the extent Plaintiffs seek to seal the personnel records of individuals not party to this action
(that is, the attached exhibits), in accordance with section II of the Stipulated Consent Confidentiality
and Protective Order As Modified By Court [DE-26], the court finds that the parties' interest in
maintaining the privacy of nonparty personnel records outweighs both the common law and First
Amendment presumption to access, and that no less drastic alternatives to sealing are adequate.
Accordingly, the court will allow the motion with regard to the attached exhibits.
However, the court finds that, while the supplemental brief contains some information that
should remain under seal, it appears that much of it should not be placed under seal. This is particularly
true because the brief relates to a motion seeking disposition of the case. See Rushford v. New Yorker

Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) (finding that "the more rigorous First Amendment
standard should also apply to documents filed in connection with a summary judgment motion in a civil
case"). Accordingly, the court will deny the motion with regard to the entire supplemental brief, and
Plaintiffs will be ordered to file a redacted version of their supplemental brief into the public record.
Plaintiffs motion to seal [DE-69] is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of
Court is directed to maintain DE-68 and the attached exhibits under seal. On or before March 20,2013,
Plaintiffs are directed to file a redacted version of their supplemental brief into the public record.
)

SO ORDERED. This the Jl_ day of March, 2013.

nior United States District Judge

2