Pileggi v. USA

Filing 28

ORDER denying Respondent's 26 Motion to Seal Document without prejudice to file a motion in compliance with the Court's Local Rules; granting Petitioner's 27 Motion for Leave to File is construed as a motion for extension of time to file a Reply. Replies due 4/5/2019. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/14/2019. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-159-RJC
3:06-cr-151-RJC-1
GUISEPPE PILEGGI,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Respondent’s Sealed Motion to Seal Exhibit
A to its Response, (Doc. No. 26), and pro se Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to Reply to
Government’s Response,” (Doc. No. 27).
The Court’s Local Rules provide for a “presumption under applicable common law and the
First Amendment that materials filed in this Court will be filed unsealed.” LCvR 6.1(a). A motion
to seal must set forth: (1) a non-confidential description of the material sought to be sealed; (2) a
statement indicating why sealing is necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing under
seal; (3) unless a permanent seal is sought, a statement indicating how long the party seeks to have
the material maintained under seal and how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing; and (4)
supporting statutes, case law, or other authority. LCvR 6.1(c). Petitioner’s Motion does not comply
with the Local Rules and, because the Motion itself is sealed, Petitioner has had no opportunity to
respond. The Motion will therefore be denied without prejudice.
Petitioner’s Motion is construed as a motion for an extension of time until April 5, 2019 to
file a Reply to the Government’s Response opposing his § 2255 Motion to Vacate. Petitioner’s
Motion will be granted.
1

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Respondent’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED without prejudice
to file a motion in compliance with the Court’s Local Rules.

2.

Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to File…,” (Doc. No. 27), is construed as a
motion for extension of time to file a Reply and is GRANTED until April
5, 2019.

Signed: March 14, 2019

2