Pagidipati Enterprises, Inc. v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 11/1/11, that Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Docket Entry 45 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER that Defendant may file redacted copies of its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaration of Robert Nelson on the docket and that unredacted copies of those documents shall remain under seal. (Law, Trina)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PAGIDIPATI ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10CV742
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to
File Documents Under Seal (Docket Entry 45).
For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant said motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The instant motion arises from Defendant’s desire to file its
Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and
its supporting Declaration of Robert Nelson, under seal with this
Court.
(See Docket Entry 45.)
Defendant asserts that Robert
Nelson’s declaration “includes information in paragraphs 6, 7, 10,
11, and 13-17, concerning [Defendant]’s acquisition process which
is not available to the general public.”
(Docket Entry 45, ¶ 3.)
Defendant further notes that it “refers to and discusses the
content of paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13-17 in its [Brief in]
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Id., ¶ 5)
Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court allow it “to file
the Declaration of Robert Nelson and its Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment under Seal [sic].” (Docket
Entry 46 at 4.)
Defendant further “proposes to publicly file
redacted
versions
information.”
of
these
documents
which
omit
confidential
(Id. at 3-4.)
In support of said motion, Defendant filed the Declaration of
Kathryn Wright Kyle (Docket Entry 41), its Director of Litigation,
in which she affirms that she “reviewed the Declaration of Robert
Nelson, dated October 14, 2011.
Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-17 of
that declaration contain the type of information that [Defendant]
considers to be non-public and thus would be useful to a competitor
interested in [Defendant’s] acquisition process.”
(Docket Entry
41, ¶ 5.)
II.
DISCUSSION
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
recognized
that
“there
may
be
instances
in
which
discovery
materials should be kept under seal even after they are made part
of a dispostiive motion.”
Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine,
Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988).
“When presented with a
request to seal judicial records or documents, a district court
must comply with certain substantive and procedural requirements.”
Virginia Dept. of State Police v. The Washington Post, 386 F.3d
567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004).
Procedurally:
[The district court] must give the public notice of the
request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to challenge
the request; it must consider less drastic alternatives
to sealing; and if it decides to seal it must state the
reasons (and specific supporting findings) for its
decision and the reasons for rejecting alternatives to
sealing. Adherence to this procedure serves to ensure
that the decision to seal materials will not be made
lightly and that it will be subject to meaningful
appellate review.
-2-
Id.
(internal citation omitted).
“As to the substance, the
district court first must determine the source of the right of
access with respect to each document, because only then can it
accurately weigh the competing interests at stake.”
Id. (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that the legal
framework
for
sealing
documents,
described
above,
applies
to
determine whether a party may file a redacted document, i.e., a
document sealed in part.
See United States v. Moussaoui, 65 Fed.
Appx. 881, 889 (4th Cir. 2003) (“As to those documents subject to
a right of access, we must then conduct the appropriate balancing
to determine whether the remainder of the document should remain
sealed, in whole or in part.”). Thus, courts in the Fourth Circuit
apply the legal framework for sealing where a party moves to file
a redacted document.
See, e.g., Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic
Games, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-275-D, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26720, at *37 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2011) (unpublished) (granting parties’ motions
to seal documents or portions thereof containing alleged trade
secrets); Wolfe v. Green, Civil Action No. 2:08-01023, 2010 U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
132929,
at
*6-7
(S.D.
W.
Va.
Dec.
15,
2010)
(unpublished) (granting parties’ joint motion to redact filings
holding parties made necessary showing to address both common law
and First Amendment rights of access); Bethesda Softworks, LLC v.
Interplay Entertainment Corp., Civil Action No. DKC 09-2357, 2010
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
100769,
at
*26-29
-3-
(D.
Md.
Sept.
23,
2010)
(unpublished) (treating plaintiff’s motion to redact transcript as
a motion to seal).
Initially, the Court observes that the instant joint motion to
seal exhibits has been publicly docketed since October 18, 2011.
(Docket
Entry
45.)
Any
interested
party
therefore
has
had
sufficient time to seek intervention to contest any sealing order,
but no opposition has been filed (see Docket Entries from October
18, 2011, to present).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that, as
to the motion at issue, the “public notice” prerequisite to entry
of a sealing order has been satisfied.
See Stone v. University of
Md. Med. Sys., 855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing use of
docketing to comply with procedural requirements for sealing).
Next, the Court must determine what, if any, public access
right
attaches
requests.
to
the
items
covered
by
the
instant
sealing
See Virginia Dept. of State Police, 386 F.3d at 576.
The more rigorous First Amendment standard applies to documents
related to dispositive motions.
See Rushford, 846 F.2d at 252-53
(“Once the documents are made part of a dispositive motion, such as
a summary judgment motion, they lose their status of being raw
fruits of discovery. . . . We believe that the more rigorous First
Amendment
standard
should
also
apply
to
documents
filed
in
connection with a summary judgment motion in a civil case.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Scenera Research LLC v. Morris,
See also
Nos. 5:09-Cv-412-FL, 5:09-CV-439,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14668, at *1-2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2011)
(unpublished) (“Because the documents sought to be sealed are
-4-
related to dispositive motions, they are subject to a
First
Amendment right of access by the public.” (italics in original)
(citing Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253)); Walter Kiddie Portable Equip.,
Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., No. 1:05CV01031, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3426, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2008) (unpublished)
(Tilley, J.) (“However, when this discovery rule is applied to seal
documents used . . . in dispositive motions . . . a ‘rigorous First
Amendment standard’ applies to protect the public’s right to
access.” (italics in original) (citing Virginia Dept. of State
Police, 386 F.3d at 576)).
Defendant’s declaration and brief are
thus subject to the right of access granted by the First Amendment,
because they were filed in connection with a motion for summary
judgment.
The Court next must balance that First Amendment access right
against the competing interests identified by Defendant.
In that
regard, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that:
One exception to the public’s right of access is where
such access to judicial records could provide a “source[]
of business information that might harm a litigant’s
competitive standing.”
Woven Elec. Corp. v. Advanced Group, Inc., Nos. 89-1580, 89-1588,
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6004, at *17 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 1991)
(unpublished)
(bracket
in
original)
(quoting
Nixon
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
v.
Warner
Because the
interests identified by Defendant involve such sensitive business
information,
the
balance
requested by Defendant.
in
this
case
warrants
redaction
as
The Court finds that Defendant’s limited
-5-
redactions are narrowly tailored to maintain the secrecy of only
sensitive business information.
Therefore, partial sealing of
these documents through the use of redactions is appropriate.
III.
CONCLUSION
The Court observes that the public has had sufficient time to
intervene to oppose Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under
Seal.
Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant’s interest in
protecting
its
sensitive
business
information
overcomes
the
public’s First Amendment right to access that material and warrants
redaction as proposed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to File
Documents Under Seal (Docket Entry 45) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file redacted copies
of its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Declaration of Robert Nelson on the docket and that
unredacted copies of those documents shall remain under seal.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
November 1, 2011
-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?