Dale v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 58

ORDER that Plaintiff's 38 pro se Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants' 55 Motion to Manually File Video Exhibits is GRANTED. Counsel for the Defendants is directed to deliver the video exhibits, and a courtesy co py, to the Clerk's Office and to the Plaintiffs current housing facility so that the Plaintiff may view them. Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Seal is GRANTED. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to PERMANENTLY SEAL Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 to the Pl aintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 39 ]. Defendants' 54 Motion to Seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to seek a more narrowly tailored relief within thirty (30) days of this Order. Should Defendants fail to timely comply, Docket Entry 53 will be unsealed. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/22/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00259-MR

DAMETRI DALE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
)
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for
an Evidentiary Hearing and/or Order to the Defendants to file Video Evidence
on Behalf of Plaintiff on his Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 38]; the
Defendants’ Motion to Manually File Video Exhibits [Doc. 55]; and the parties’
Motions to Seal [Docs. 40, 54].
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this civil rights action addressing
incidents that allegedly occurred at the Foothills Correctional Institution.
[Doc. 1]. The Complaint passed initial review on claims against Defendants
Eris Allen, Brandon Orders, and Robert Campbell for the use of excessive
force and failure to intervene, and the Court exercised supplemental
jurisdiction over a North Carolina assault claim against Defendant

Campbell.1

[Doc. 11].

The Defendants waived service, and the Court

entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order and Case Management Plan. 2 [Doc.
31]. The parties have filed dispositive motions. [See Docs. 37, 41, 52].
Several Motions are presently pending that will be addressed in turn.
In his “Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing…,” the Plaintiff asks the Court
to require the Defendants to file video footage from November 11, 2022 on
his behalf, and he requests an evidentiary hearing on his Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. 38]. The Defendants have filed a Motion seeking
leave to manually file a USB drive containing video exhibits including the
incidents of November 11, 2022. [Doc. 55]. The Defendants sent the Plaintiff
another copy of the videos at issue, which the Plaintiff already viewed during
discovery, with instructions that the facility allow the Plaintiff to view the
videos. [Id.]. The Defendants’ Motion to Manually File is granted pursuant
to the Court’s ECF Administrative Procedures.

See Admin. Procedures

Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means, Section IV(D), (G) (rev.
Dec. 1, 2022). Counsel for Defendants is directed to deliver the video
exhibits, and a courtesy copy, to the Clerk’s Office in addition to providing a

1

The Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, but the Court dismissed that
pleading as abusive and for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders. [See Docs. 16, 18].
2

The Court appointed North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services to assist the Plaintiff with
discovery, but it declined the representation. [Docs. 31, 32].

2

copy to the Plaintiff’s facility. The Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring the
Defendants to file video footage on his behalf is, therefore, denied as moot.
The Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing is also denied as moot
because the Court will grant any appropriate relief when it addresses the
pending dispositive motions in a separate order.
The Plaintiff moves the Court to seal Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 to his Motion
for Summary Judgment, which are NCDAC documents stamped
“CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” including an
Incident Report, Witness Statements, and Offender Photographic
Documentation Records that are stamped [Doc. 40; see Doc. 39]. The
Defendants move the Court to seal their Memorandum in support of the
Motion for Summary Judgment and the attached exhibits [Doc. 54; see Doc.
53]. The Defendants’ exhibits include an “Offender Public Information”
printout [Doc. 53-1 at 6], disciplinary and grievance records [Doc. 53-1 at 8,
10], and the Defendants’ Declarations [Doc. 53-2, 53-3, 53-4]. The parties
argue that these documents discuss the Plaintiff’s medical records and
mental health history, and include documents that are confidential under
state and/or federal law. [Docs. 40, 54].
There is a “presumption under applicable common law and the First
Amendment that materials filed in this Court will be filed unsealed.” LCvR
3

6.1(a); see Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th
Cir. 1988) (First Amendment right to access to court proceedings includes
criminal and civil cases). However, a court has authority to seal documents
before it based upon the court’s inherent supervisory authority over its own
files and records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
(1978). The denial of access to documents under the First Amendment
must be necessitated by a compelling government interest that is narrowly
tailored to serve that interest. See In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d
383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986); In re State-Record Co., Inc., 917 F.2d 124, 127 (4th
Cir. 1990). Before sealing judicial records, a court must identify the interest
that overrides the public’s right to an open court, and articulate supporting
findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the
order was properly entered. See Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of
Ca., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984); LCvR 6.1. When addressing motions to
seal, the Court must consider alternatives to sealing and specify whether
the sealing is temporary or permanent and also may redact such orders in
its discretion. LCvR 6.1.
The Court has considered alternatives to sealing and finds that the
Plaintiff’s and the NCDAC’s interests in the confidentiality of certain prison
records overrides the public’s right to an open court in this case, that there
4

is no alternative that will adequately protect these concerns, and that
permanently sealing Exhibits 7, 8, 9 to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is warranted.

The Plaintiff’s Motion will be granted for the

reasons set forth therein and the Clerk of Court will be directed to
permanently seal Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
However, the Defendants’ Motion to seal the entire Memorandum
and all of the attached exhibits fails to differentiate between public
information and confidential information that should remain protected. The
Defendants’ Motion is, therefore, denied without prejudice to seek more
tailored relief by, for instance, redacting confidential portions of the
Memorandum and identifying confidential portions of the attachments that
should be sealed. Should the Defendants fail to seek more narrowly tailored
relief within 30 days of this Order, the Clerk will be instructed to unseal
Docket Entry 53.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or
Order to the Defendants to file Video Evidence on Behalf of
Plaintiff on his Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 38] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
5

2.

The Defendants’ Motion to Manually File Video Exhibits [Doc.
55] is GRANTED. Counsel for the Defendants is directed to
deliver the video exhibits, and a courtesy copy, to the Clerk’s
Office. Counsel shall also provide a copy of the exhibits to the
Plaintiff’s current housing facility so that the Plaintiff may view
them.

3.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [Doc. 40] is GRANTED. The Clerk
is respectfully instructed to PERMANENTLY SEAL Exhibits 7, 8
and 9 to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 39].

4.

The Defendants’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 54] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to seek a more narrowly tailored relief within thirty
(30) days of this Order. Should the Defendants fail to timely
comply, Docket Entry 53 will be unsealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 22, 2024

6