Atlantic Pinstriping, LLC et al v. Atlantic Pinstriping Traid, LLC et al

Filing 124

ORDER Granting re 121 Consent MOTION to Seal Document 120 Sealed Document . Follows text order of 8/7/2018. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 8/8/2018. (jaw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
Atlantic Pinstriping, LLC, and
Michael Montemurro,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Atlantic Pinstriping Triad, LLC,
Atlantic Dealer Services Coastal, LLC,
Tony Horne,
William E. Horne, and
Jerry W. Parker,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:16-CV-547-GCM

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal certain portions of their
Response to Defendants Declarations Regarding Their Ability to Pay (the “Response”) and
Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Response. The Motion is unopposed.
When a party makes a request to seal judicial records, the Court must (1) give the public
notice and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the request to seal; (2) “consider less drastic
alternatives to sealing;” and (3) if it decides to seal, make specific findings and state the reasons
for its decision to seal rather than choosing other alternatives. Virginia Dep’t of State Police v.
Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004). In accordance with the law of this Circuit as
well as the Local Rules, the Court has considered the Motion to Seal, the public’s interest in access
to such materials, and alternatives to sealing. The public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs filed their motion on August 6, 2018,
and it has been accessible to the public through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that

time. The Court determines that no less restrictive means than sealing is sufficient because a public
filing of such materials would violate the parties’ contractual obligations under the arbitration
agreement, which states, “The entire Arbitration proceedings are confidential.” (Doc. 24-7, at §
17.02(j)). See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Padussis, 127 F. Supp. 3d 483, 501 (D. Md. 2015), aff’d,
842 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2016) (sealing documents where “the parties executed stipulations
protecting the confidentiality of documents disclosed during arbitration”). A public filing would
also reveal information regarding Defendants’ finances, which this Court has already determined
should be sealed. (Doc. 111). The Court concludes that the sealing of these documents is narrowly
tailored to serve the interest of protecting the confidentiality of the arbitration award and
Defendants’ personal financial information. Plaintiffs do not seek to seal all of the information in
the Response. Rather, they have filed a public version of the Response that includes all the
information that is not required to be kept confidential pursuant to the arbitration agreement and
the Court’s July 26, 2018 Order. Sealing is necessary to protect the remaining information. See
Bayer Cropscience Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 653, 657 (M.D.N.C. 2013)
(sealing documents where redacted versions were publicly filed, but refusing to seal other
documents where redacted versions had not been filed); Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v.
Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 2008 WL 451568, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2008) (stating less
drastic alternatives to sealing include “redacting sensitive information or only sealing certain
documents”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is hereby GRANTED, and
the following documents shall be filed under seal:
1. The unredacted version of the Response; and
2. Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Response.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 8, 2018