MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 420

MOTION to Seal Document #270 Reply to Response to Motion, (To Seal Exhibit 1 of DE 270) (Unopposed Motion) by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. Responses due by 7/14/2014 (SPARKS, STEFANIE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:07-CV-00953
RYAN McFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

PLAINTIFFS’
UNCONTESTED MOTION
TO SEAL

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
respectfully move the Court for an Order sealing Exhibit 1 to Defendant Duke
University’s 1 March 2012 reply brief in support of its motion for a protective
order concerning a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. [DE 270-1]. In support of this
Motion, Plaintiffs show the Court the following:
1.

In support of its reply brief, Defendant Duke University filed with this

Court a copy of an Undergraduate Judicial Board Hearing Report (“Hearing
Report”) concerning Plaintiff Matthew Wilson’s private disciplinary hearing from
21 August 2006, that Mr. Wilson had produced in discovery. (Id.).
2.

Because the Hearing Report was not filed in connection with a

dispositive motion, no First Amendment right of access attaches to this document.
Bayer CropScience Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2013 WL

5703212, at *1-2 (M.D.N.C. 2013). Under the common law, a district court “has
supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion, seal documents
if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.” In re Knight
Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).
3.

Mr. Wilson’s Hearing Report – compiled as part of a closed-session

disciplinary procedure nearly eight years ago – presents no valid interest for public
access. On the other hand, Mr. Wilson’s interests in keeping the Hearing Report
private would be served by sealing this document.
4.

Defendant Duke University does not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to seal

the Hearing Report.
5.

Defendant City of Durham does not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to seal

the Hearing Report.
For the foregoing reasons, and for those stated in the accompanying brief,
the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an Order sealing Mr.
Wilson’s Hearing Report.
This the 19th day of June 2014.

2

Respectfully submitted by:
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand
N.C. Bar No. 26673
110 Swift Avenue, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
/s/ Stefanie Sparks Smith
Stefanie Sparks Smith
N.C. Bar No. 42345
110 Swift Avenue, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:07-CV-00953
RYAN McFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 19, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of the filing to
counsel of record for Defendants and Defendant Linwood Wilson, all of who are
registered CM/ECF users.
Respectfully submitted by:
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
/s/ Stefanie Sparks Smith
Stefanie Sparks Smith
Counsel for Plaintiffs

4