Ann Brock v. Wells Fargo & Company Health Plan et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 7/23/2013. (blf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00176-MOC
ANN BROCK,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (#28). A party who
seeks to seal any pleading must comply with Local Civil Rule 6.1 (W.D.N.C. 2009). The Local
Civil Rule provides in relevant part as follows:
LCvR 6.1

SEALED FILINGS AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

(A)

Scope of Rule. This rule shall govern any request by a party to
seal, or otherwise restrict public access to, any materials filed with
the Court or utilized in connection with judicial decision-making.
As used in this rule, “materials” shall include pleadings as well as
documents of any nature and in any medium.

(B)

Filing Under Seal. No materials may be filed under seal except by Order
of the Court, pursuant to a statute, or in accordance with a previously
entered Rule 26(e) Protective Order.

(C)

Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access. A request by a party
to file materials under seal shall be made by formal motion, separate and
apart from the motion or other pleading sought to be sealed, pursuant to
LCvR 7.1. Such motion shall be filed electronically under the designation
“Motion to Seal.” The motion or supporting brief shall set forth:
a non-confidential description of the material sought to be sealed;
a statement as to why sealing is necessary and why there are no
alternatives to filing under seal;
unless permanent sealing is sought, a statement as to the period of time the
party seeks to have the material maintained under seal and as to how the
matter is to be handled upon unsealing; and
supporting statutes, case law or other authority.

(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

1

(E)

(F)

***
Public Notice. No motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access shall
be determined without reasonable public notice. Notice shall be deemed
reasonable where a motion is filed in accordance with the provisions of
LCvR 6.1(C). Other parties, interveners, and non-parties may file
objections and briefs in opposition or support of the motion within the
time provided by LCvR 7.1 and may move to intervene under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24.
Orders Sealing Documents. Orders sealing or otherwise restricting
access shall reflect consideration of the factors set forth in LCvR
6.1(C). In the discretion of the Court, such orders may be filed
electronically or conventionally and may be redacted.

L.Cv.R. 6.1(W.D.N.C. 2012).

***
The requirements of Rule 6.1(C)(1) through (4) have been

complied with.
As reflected in the rule, the court is required to consider the factors contained in Local
Civil Rule 6.1(C). The first factor is found in Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(1), which requires that the
parties adequately describe the materials sought to be sealed.

The rule requires “a

non-confidential description of the material sought to be sealed.” L.Civ.R. 6.1(C)(1). The rule is
intended to give third-parties, including the press, fair notice of the nature of the materials sought
to be sealed. The description contained in the motion is adequate.
The court next considers Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(2), which requires “a statement as to
why sealing is necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing under seal.” L.Cv.R.
6.1(C)(2). Such statement has been provided and is adequate as it appears that the exhibit that
plaintiff seeks to seal contains information as to the name of a minor.
As to Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(3), there are no provisions for sealing matters beyond the
life of the case, inasmuch as case materials must be placed in the National Archives.

If the

parties believe at the conclusion of the case that such materials remain sensitive, they should
move the Clerk of Court to strike any such sensitive pleadings from the official court record.
2

Finally, the court has considered Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(4), which requires the parties to
provide citations of law supporting the relief they seek.

Plaintiff has complied with such

provision and such request is consistent with Media General Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417
F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005), which held as follows:
We have held that in determining whether to seal judicial documents, a
judicial officer must comply with certain procedural requirements. Washington
Post, 807 F.2d at 390. The decision to seal documents must be made after
independent review by a judicial officer, and supported by “findings and
conclusions specific enough for appellate review.” Goetz, 886 F.2d at 65-66. If a
judicial officer determines that full public access is not appropriate, she “must
consider alternatives to sealing the documents” which may include giving the
public access to some of the documents or releasing a redacted version of the
documents that are the subject of the government’s motion to seal. Goetz, 886
F.2d at 66.
Id., at 429. The proposed sealing of the exhibit in this matter would be consistent with current
case law inasmuch as the materials involve matters of little public interest, inasmuch as they
relate to the name of a minor and other matters clearly intended to be confidential as provided
under HIPPA.
Having considered all of the factors provided in Local Civil Rule 6.1(C), the court will
grant the Motion to Seal. Inasmuch as the time for public response has not run to this motion,
the court will consider any objection to this Order from non-parties as an objection to the motion,
requiring no additional burden for any non-party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (#28) is GRANTED,
and the plaintiff is allowed to file Exhibits A & B under seal. This Order and any Order issued
by this court based on such documents will not necessarily be sealed, but references to any
sensitive portion of sealed materials will be minimized.

Signed: July 23, 2013

4