Futreal et al v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting 52 Motion to Seal DE*50 Defendant Ringle's Answer to Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/9/2018. (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUPERT FUTREAL, individually
And as Administrator of the Estate of
ELNA FUTREAL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DUSTIN RINGLE; TRUE’S CUSTOM
FLOOR COVERING, INC.; EAN
HOLDINGS, LLC; ENTERPRISE
LEASING COMPANY – SOUTHEAST,
LLC; and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:18-cv-29

ORDER TO SEAL
This matter presented by way of Motion to File under Seal by Defendant Dustin Ringle
(hereinafter “Ringle”); AND IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that the Court, having reviewed
the Motion, Brief in Support of Motion to File under Seal by Defendant Ringle filed on May 7,
2018, the Court orders as follows:
1. Counsel for Defendant True’s Custom Floor Covering, Inc. consents to the motion to seal
2. Counsel for Defendants EAN Holdings, LLC;Enterprise Leasing Company – Southeast,
LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Enterprise Defendants”) consents to the motion to
seal.
3. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint on January 9, 2018 in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division of Duplin County, North Carolina. On February
2

20, 2018, counsel for Enterprise Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the Eastern
District of North Carolina. (D.E. *1.)
4. The Complaint and subsequent Amended Complaint (D.E. *25) reference certain pending
criminal charges pending against Ringle arising out of the accident referenced in the
Complaint and Amended Complaint.
5. The Fourth Circuit utilizes factors to determine whether the records should be filed under
seal, these factors including whether release would enhance the public’s understanding of
an important historical event, whether the public already had access to the information,
whether the records are sought for improper purposes or promote a scandal. Silicon
Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., 5:07-CV-275-D, 2008 WL 2019648 (E.D.N.C. May 8,
2008).
6. If the information sought to be kept private is so pervasive throughout the documents,
redaction is not a sufficient alternative. See Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc.,
No.5:07-CV-275, 2011 WL 902256, *2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2011).
7. After examining the Answer of Defendant Ringle at issue, the Court finds that all contain
confidential information where the risk of harm outweighs any public right to access and
the alternatives to sealing are inadequate.
8. After publishing notice of the Motion to Seal of Ringle, 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.
9. The Court has considered alternatives to sealing the records outlined in Ringle’s Motion
to Seal, but determines that the alternatives would harm Ringle’s ability to participate

3

fully in this case, and also harm the Plaintiffs’ ability to proceed forward in a timely
manner with this case, as the viable alternative would be a motion and order to stay.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Answer of Defendant Ringle
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 9th day of July, 2018.

_________________________
United States District Judge
Eastern District of North Carolina

4