The Biltmore Company v. NU U, Inc. et al
Filing
131
ORDER granting 130 Motion to Seal Document, and Exhibit A to the Haas Affidavit shall be filed permanently under seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/11/2017. (kby)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00288-MR
THE BILTMORE COMPANY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NU U, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
[Doc. 130].
The Plaintiff moves for leave to file under seal Exhibit A to the Haas
Affidavit [Doc. 127-1], which was filed in support of its Motion for Attorney’s
Fees [Doc. 125]. This exhibit consists of the billing records and invoices of
the Plaintiff’s attorneys.
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).
The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the billing records contained in
Exhibit A to the Haas Affidavit contain privileged information, 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. The Fourth Circuit has recognized that time records fall within
the attorney-client privilege. See Chaudry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 402
(4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Clarke v. American Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d
2
127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that time records can “reveal the motive of
the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature
of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law”).
Additionally, the Court finds that the public has been provided with adequate
notice and an opportunity to object to the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff filed
the present motion on June 9, 2017, and it has been accessible to the public
through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Finally,
having considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the time records, the
Court concludes that the permanent sealing of these documents is narrowly
tailored to serve the interest of protecting the confidentiality of the information
contained therein.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
[Doc. 130] is GRANTED, and Exhibit A to the Haas Affidavit [Doc. 128]
shall be filed permanently under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 11, 2017
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?