Hensley et al v. Suttles et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting Defendant's 41 Motion to Seal. Defendants shall be permitted to file Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Chad Thompson under seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/3/2015. (nv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00193-MR-DLH

TERESA ANN HENSLEY,
Administrator of the Estate of
David Lee Hensley, et al.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BOBBY R. SUTTLES, Individually
)
and in his Official Capacity as former )
Sheriff of Haywood County, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
[Doc. 41].
The Defendants move for leave to file under seal the document
referenced as Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Chad Thompson filed in support of
the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants represent
that Exhibit B consists of a document contained in an SBI file which was
produced to the parties pursuant to a protective order [Doc. 37].
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) 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 Defendants’ motion. The Defendants filed
their motion on December 1, 2015, and it has been accessible to the public
through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the
2

Defendants have demonstrated that the documents at issue contain
confidential information produced to the parties pursuant to a protective
order, and that the public’s right of access to such information is substantially
outweighed by the compelling interest in protecting the details of such
information from public disclosure. Finally, having considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing the documents, the Court concludes that sealing of
these documents is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting the
confidentiality of this document.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
[Doc. 41] is GRANTED, and the Defendants shall be permitted to file Exhibit
B to the Affidavit of Chad Thompson under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 3, 2015

3