Sisk v. Abbott Laboratories

Filing 209

ORDER granting 167 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 02/24/2014. (thh)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00159-MR-DLH

KIMBERLY S. SISK, individually and )
as mother and natural guardian of
)
S.A.S., a minor,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an
)
Illinois corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal [Doc. 167].
The Defendant seeks leave to file under seal certain documents filed
in support of its motions in limine, including healthcare records for the
Plaintiff and her minor child and materials pertaining to Defendant’s trade
secrets and other commercially sensitive information, including the
commercial information of a third-party entity.
oppose the Defendant’s request.

The Plaintiff does not

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that 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 Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984); see
also Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.
1988) (“The common law presumption of access may be overcome if
competing interests outweigh the interest in access, and a court’s denial of
access is reviewable only for abuse of discretion.”). Before sealing a court
document, however, the Court must “(1) provide public notice of the
request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to
object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and
(3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to
seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco,
Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate
notice and an opportunity to object to the Defendant’s motion.

The

Defendant filed its motion on February 13, 2014, and it has been
accessible to the public through the Court’s electronic case filing system
since that time.

Further, the Defendant has demonstrated that the

documents at issue contain certain sensitive personal and/or confidential
2

business information, and that the public’s right of access to such
information is substantially outweighed by the competing interest in
protecting the details of such information. Finally, having considered less
drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, the Court concludes that
sealing of these documents is necessary to protect the parties’ privacy
interests.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal [Doc. 167] is GRANTED, and (1) portions of Defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude
Plaintiff’s Proposed Summary Exhibit No. 53 and Exhibits A, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, and L thereto; and (2) Exhibits B, C, and D to Defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude
International Formula Council Documents shall be placed under seal
pending further Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 24, 2014

3