Gentry v. Maggie Valley Resort Management, LLC et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Seal Documents Documents 71 & 72 . Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/9/14. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00108-MR-DLH

JUDITH GENTRY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
MAGGIE VALLEY RESORT
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC; EAST WEST
)
PARTNERS CLUB MANAGEMENT
)
COMPANY, INC.; and JAY MANNER, )
individually,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Documents Marked as Confidential to Be Filed in Support of Her
Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. 66].
The Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal certain documents filed in
support of her opposition to the Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment, including (1) Plaintiff’s medical records, documents relating to
her physical health and treatment, and her workers’ compensation injury
and claim; (2) documents relating to Plaintiff’s termination from employment

and the termination of other employees in 2010, and thereafter; (3)
documents relating to the medical condition and/or workers’ compensation
injuries sustained by non-party employees of Maggie Valley Club and
Resort; (4) documents relating to personnel records of the Plaintiff,
Defendant Jay Manner, and other individuals who worked at Maggie Valley
Club and Resort; (5) documents relating to Defendant Manner’s actions as
the general manager of Maggie Valley Club and Resort; (6) documents
submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and North
Carolina Department of Labor by Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s
administrative charges of discrimination; and (7) documents relating to the
Defendants’ business practices, financial or accounting date, and other
sensitive business data. All of these documents have been marked as
“confidential” by one or more of the parties in the case pursuant to the
terms of the Protective Order previously entered herein, and contain
sensitive personal information and confidential and/or proprietary business
information. The Plaintiff further represents that the Defendants consent to
the Plaintiff’s request to seal such documents. [Doc. 66].
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
2

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 Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff
filed her motion on March 10, 2014, and it has been accessible to the
public through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time.
Further, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that many of the documents at
issue1 – particularly the Plaintiff’s medical records, as well as medical

1

While ordinarily the Court would be more specific in its designation of the documents
to be filed under seal, the Plaintiff filed her motion to seal without also filing the
documents she sought to have sealed. Ten days after filing the motion to seal, the
Plaintiff filed her Appendix to her summary judgment response, which presumably
3

records and personnel records of non-party employees and financial and
other sensitive business data of the Defendants -- contain sensitive
personal and 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. Having considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing the documents, the Court concludes that sealing of
the above-referenced documents is necessary to protect the parties’
privacy interests.
With respect to the other documents cited by the Plaintiff – including
documents related to her workers’ compensation claims and administrative
charges of discrimination, documents related to her termination, and
documents related to Defendant Manner’s actions as general manager of
Maggie Valley Club and Resort – these documents go to the very heart of
the Plaintiff’s claims. While the parties may have agreed to designate such
documents as confidential, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the

contains the documents at issue. This Appendix, however, spans more than 1,000
pages. It would be a herculean task for the Court to determine which documents the
Plaintiff intended to have sealed and which she did not. The Court admonishes
Plaintiff’s counsel in the future to present the documents to be sealed along with the
sealing order so that such documents may be reviewed.
The Court also would encourage counsel to be more selective in the number of
documents he chooses to include in the record. It is the rare case that truly requires a
1,000+ page Appendix in response to a motion for summary judgment.
4

public’s right of access is substantially outweighed by the parties’ interest in
protecting this information from public disclosure. The Court further finds
that less drastic alternatives to sealing such documents, such as redacting
personal identifiers like Social Security numbers, would adequately protect
the parties’ privacy interests with respect to these documents.
In sum, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to file any of her medical
records under seal. The Court will further allow the Plaintiff to file any
medical and/or personnel records of non-party employees and any
sensitive financial or business data of the Defendants under seal. With
respect to all of the other documents identified, the Court will deny the
motion to seal. The parties, however, shall not be precluded from filing
versions of these documents with personal identifiers, such as Social
Security numbers, redacted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal
Documents [Doc. 66] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The
documents filed by the Plaintiff in support of her Response to the
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 71, 72] shall be placed
under seal for a period of ten (10) days in order to allow the Plaintiff an
opportunity to refile such documents in accordance with the terms of this
Order.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 9, 2014

6