Michaels et al v. Agape Senior Community Inc et al

Filing 291

ORDER granting 289 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 06/05/2015.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
United States of America ex rel. BRIANNA
MICHAELS and AMY WHITESIDES,

C/A No. 0:12-cv-03466-JFA

Relators,
vs.
AGAPE SENIOR COMMUNITY, INC.;
AGAPE SENIOR PRIMARY CARE, INC.;
AGAPE SENIOR SERVICES, INC.;
AGAPE SENIOR, LLC;
AGAPE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.;
AGAPE COMMUNITY HOSPICE, INC.;
AGAPE NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.
d/b/a AGAPE REHABILITATION OF
ROCK HILL a/k/a AGAPE SENIOR POST
ACUTE CARE CENTER – ROCK HILL a/k/a
EBENEZER SENIOR SERVICES, LLC;
AGAPE SENIOR FOUNDATION, INC.;
AGAPE COMMUNITY HOSPICE OF
ANDERSON, INC.; AGAPE HOSPICE OF THE
PIEDMONT, INC.; AGAPE COMMUNITY
HOSPICE OF THE GRAND STRAND, INC.;
AGAPE COMMUNITY HOSPICE OF THE
PEE DEE, INC.; AGAPE COMMUNITY
HOSPICE OF THE UPSTATE, INC.; AGAPE
HOSPICE HOUSE OF HORRY COUNTY, INC.;
AGAPE HOSPICE HOUSE OF LAURENS, LLC;
AGAPE HOSPICE HOUSE OF THE LOW
COUNTRY, INC.; AGAPE HOSPICE HOUSE
OF THE PIEDMONT, INC.; AGAPE
REHABILITATION OF CONWAY, INC.;
AGAPE SENIOR SERVICES FOUNDATION,
INC.; AGAPE THERAPY, INC.; AGAPE
HOSPICE; HOSPICE PIEDMONT; HOSPICE
ROCK HILL; and CAROLINAS
COMMUNITY HOSPICE, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to file under seal the
Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
Memorandum in Support (the “Reply”). The Reply details a proposed settlement agreement,
which has not been made public and will not be made public until such settlement agreement is
consummated.
After reviewing the memorandum in support, the Court grants the foregoing motion to
seal, ECF No. 289. The parties are entitled to conduct negotiations in confidence. Confidential
materials appear throughout the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Reply—
rendering redaction impractical. Further, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the
Reply do not relate to any historical public event; therefore, there is no question of whether the
release of the sealed documents would enhance the public’s understanding of an important
historical event. Finally, cases in which sealing has been denied have involved strong public
interest; however, no such countervailing public interest outweighs the interest of the parties in
the confidentiality of their negotiations.
Public notice of the request to seal and opportunity to object is afforded by virtue of the
publicly filed motion to seal. No objections have been filed to the motion to seal. Accordingly,
the Court finds persuasive the arguments of counsel in favor of sealing the document. The
confidential nature of the status of settlement in the documents at issue requires that the Reply be
sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 5, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge