The Wellness Group, LLC v. King Bio, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER granting 67 Motion for Leave to File Documents under Seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/10/13. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00281-MR-DLH

THE WELLNESS GROUP, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
KING BIO, INC., DR. FRANK J.
)
KING, JR., SUZIE R. KING, DAVID
)
GERHARDT, and MICHAEL N.
)
WHITTAKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to File Documents under Seal [Doc. 67].
King Bio seeks leave to file under seal certain documents filed in
support of its motion for summary judgment, including customer sales
reports, accounts receivables, payment histories, invoice summaries, cash
receipts reports, specific accounting practices, customer and prospective
customer identities, and details related to specific customer negotiations
and deals.

These documents contain confidential and proprietary

information that is not otherwise available to the public.

Similarly,

Defendants Dr. King and Suzie King seek to file under seal documents
containing information regarding their ownership interests in privately held
entities; information regarding their personal accounting and finances; and
information regarding the relationships, if any, between and among the
privately held entities that they own. These documents contain confidential
information that is not otherwise available to the public.
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

2

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 Defendants’ motion.

The

Defendants filed their motion on November 21, 2013, and it has been
accessible to the public through the Court’s electronic case filing system
since that time.

Further, the Defendants have demonstrated that the

documents at issue contain certain proprietary and/or confidential 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 Defendants’ privacy interests.
The documents at issue shall be placed under seal for the remainder
of this litigation. Upon conclusion of the case, with the Court’s permission,
the Defendants can retrieve all copies of the sealed materials from the
Court’s files.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to File Documents under Seal [Doc. 67] is GRANTED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 10, 2013

4