Thomas v. Helms Robinson & Lee, P.A.

Filing 32

ORDER denying without prejudice 31 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/10/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-139-RJC-DSC
KELLY THOMAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HELMS ROBINSON & LEE, P.A.,
)
SECURITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se request to seal the
case file. (Doc. No. 31.)
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants on March 17, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.)
The parties settled the case at Mediation and filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with
prejudice. (Doc. No. 30.) Since that time, Plaintiff has sent this court a “formal
letter to request to have a file sealed or expunged” but did not elaborate on what
precisely should be sealed, nor did the filing elaborate on the reasons. (Doc. No. 31.)
Western District of North Carolina Local Rule 6.1 governs sealed filings in this
district, within which Local Rule 6.1(c) lists specific requirements for such a
motion.1 Plaintiff’s motion was not filed in accordance with this rule and does not
1 “A

party’s request to file materials under seal must be made by formal motion,
separate from the motion or other pleading sought to be sealed, pursuant to LCvR
7.1. Such motion must be filed under the designation “Motion to Seal.” The motion
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
1

Case 3:16-cv-00139-RJC-DCK Document 32 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 2

contain a description sufficient to let the court know what information is to be
sealed, why sealing such information is necessary, how long the information is to
remain sealed, and legal precedent supporting the action. Local Rule 6.1(c). This
Court will therefore deny the motion but allow Plaintiff to refile in accordance with
local rules.
THEREFORE, this Court hereby orders that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, (Doc.
No. 31), is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 10, 2021

alternatives to filing under seal; (3) Unless permanent sealing 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. To the extent the party must disclose any
confidential information in order to support the motion to seal, the party may
provide that information in a separate memorandum filed under seal.” Local Rule
6.1(c).
2

Case 3:16-cv-00139-RJC-DCK Document 32 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 2