Atlantic Pinstriping, LLC et al v. Atlantic Pinstriping Traid, LLC et al
Filing
95
ORDER Granting 93 Motion to Seal doc# 91 Sealed Document Exhibit-1. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/4/2018. (jaw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16CV547
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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the final arbitration
award attached as Exhibit 1 to the Fifth Declaration of Matthew S. DeAntonio. 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 the Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff filed its motion on April
30, 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 other 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”). The Court concludes that the sealing of these documents is narrowly tailored to
serve the interest of protecting the confidentiality of the arbitration award. Plaintiff does not
seek to seal all of the information in the Arbitration Award. Rather, in its Motion to Confirm the
Arbitration Award and in the supporting brief, Atlantic has disclosed a portion of the Arbitration
Award that sets forth the relief—both monetary and injunctive— awarded by the arbitrator. This
is permitted by the arbitration agreement, which allows disclosure of material “necessary to
enforce the decision of the arbitrator hereunder.” However, sealing is necessary to protect the
remaining information, which need not be publicly disclosed to enforce the arbitrator’s decision.
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 the Motion to Seal is hereby GRANTED, and the
following documents shall be filed under seal: Exhibit 1 to the Fifth Declaration of Matthew S.
DeAntonio.
Signed: May 4, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?