Blakley v. Bates et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 50 Motion to Seal Document Affidavits of Michael Grastly and Richard Terry. If Defendants intend to continue to rely on these Affidavits and the exhibits in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants shall file an unsealed version of such affidavits and exhibits on the public docket within 5 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/5/16. (ssh)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00165-MR-DLH

DEMARCUS BLAKLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BATES, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
Affidavit of Michael Grasty and Affidavit of Richard Terry [Doc. 50].
The Plaintiff moves for leave to file under seal the Affidavits of Michael
Grasty and Richard Terry and the exhibits attached thereto, which were
submitted in support of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
[Doc. 50]. For grounds, the Defendants argue that these affidavits and
exhibits contain materials which have been designated “Attorney’s Eyes
Only” pursuant to the Protective Order issued in this matter. [Id. at 1].
The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749

F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access
extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be
rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the
public interests in access.’” Id. at 265-66 (quoting in part Rushford v. New
Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).

The First

Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated
by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
When presented with a motion to seal, the law of this Circuit requires
this Court to: “(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) if the sealing motion is
granted, 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).
Here, the Defendants contend that the Grasty and Terry Affidavits
and the exhibits attached thereto are subject to sealing due to the fact that
they reference “Attorney’s Eyes Only” materials. [Doc. 50 at 1]. The fact
that counsel may have designated this material confidential during discovery,
2

however, does not necessarily require sealing when such material is filed in
the record. See Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 518 B.R.
358, 363 (W.D.N.C. 2014) (“Protective orders serve legitimate purposes in
both expediting discovery and protecting trade secrets, proprietary
information, privileged communications, and personally sensitive data from
inadvertent disclosure during the process of discovery; however, the
confidentiality afforded under a Protective Order to discovery materials does
not automatically extend to documents submitted to the court.”).

It is

ultimately up to the Court, not the parties, to decide whether materials that
are filed in the record of this case should be shielded from public scrutiny.
The Defendants have failed to demonstrate any interest compelling
enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to the Grasty and
Terry Affidavits. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to seal is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
Affidavit of Michael Grasty and Affidavit of Richard Terry [Doc. 50] is
DENIED. If the Defendants intend to continue to rely on these Affidavits and
the exhibits attached thereto in support of their Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Defendants shall file an unsealed version of such affidavits
and exhibits on the public docket within five (5) days of the entry of this Order.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 5, 2016

4