The Guarantee Company of North America USA v. Morlando Construction, LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 37 Motion to file Notice of Provisional Settlement and Request to Postpone hearing. The previously scheduled hearing is postponed for 30 days. The Clerk of Court is instructed to reset such hearing after that date if a Voluntary Dismissal or a withdrawal of the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#14) is not filed.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 11/22/2016. (chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:16-cv-00248-MOC-DSC
THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA USA,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
MORLANDO CONSTRUCTION, LLC
MORLANDO PROPERTY INVESTMENTS,
LLC
TMR INVESTMENTS, LLC
DOMINIC N. MORLANDO
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM TRUST DATED
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
LAURA A. MORLANDO
DOMINIC N. MORLANDO IRREVOCABLE
TRUST FBO LAURA A. MORLANDO U/A
DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2015,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to File Notice of Provisional
Settlement and Request to Postpone Hearing under Seal. As reflected in Local Civil Rule 6.1, the
court is required to consider a number of factors.
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 as it describes a settlement term sheet, which may
contain proprietary or other confidential business information.
-1-

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 term sheet and motion
contain materials related to a potential settlement, which would not otherwise be admissible and
which could taint a jury pool if trial were actually required.
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.
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 not complied with such rule
beyond citing to the Local Civil Rule. However, 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 term sheet and motion 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 a proposed settlement between private parties, information which as a matter of
law would be inadmissible at a trial on the merits.
-2-

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.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to File Notice of Provisional
Settlement and Request to Postpone Hearing under Seal (#37) is GRANTED. The previously
scheduled hearing is postponed for 30 days, and the Clerk of Court is instructed to reset such
hearing after that date if a Voluntary Dismissal or a withdrawal of the pending Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (#14) is not filed.

Signed: November 22, 2016

-3-