Beason v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Filing 29

ORDER: The court grants Defendant's Motion to Seal, ECF No. 27 , and Defendant's Reply and Exhibits E and F to the Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21 , are to be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 9/11/2014.(mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jaime K. Beason,

Plaintiff,
v.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
Defendant.

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

C/A No.: 5:13-cv-03008-MGL-KDW

ORDER ON
MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

This matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. ECF No. 27.
Defendant filed its Motion on August 8, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Response was due on August 28,
2014. See ECF No. 25. Plaintiff did not file a Response to Defendant’s Motion. In support of this
Motion, Defendant maintains that its Reply and Exhibits E and F attached to the Reply contain
personal medical information that the public has no need to review. ECF No. 27.
Applicable law and the Local Rules of this court provide specific guidance regarding
consideration of a motion to seal. See Local Civ. Rule 5.03 (D.S.C.) (setting out procedure to be
followed in moving to seal documents filed with the court). In conducting its review, the court is
guided by Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). In that case, the Fourth
Circuit found that “a district court ‘has supervisory power over its own records and may, in its
discretion, seal documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.’”
(citing In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984)). The court’s discretion

notwithstanding, the court cannot ignore the presumption in favor of public access. Ashcraft, 218
F.3d at 302. Accordingly, in order to seal documents, the court must: “(1) provide public notice
of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider
less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual
findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Id.
The public-notice requirement has been satisfied by Defendant’s electronic filing of the
motion to seal, which includes a non-confidential description of the documents it seeks to have
filed under seal. ECF No. 27; 27-1. See Local Civ. Rule 5.03(D) (requiring provision of public
notice of the motion to seal and finding the docketing of such a motion to satisfy that
requirement). Defendant filed the Motion on August 8, 2014, and no one, including Plaintiff, has
opposed Defendant’s Motion to Seal.
Regarding the remaining requirements, the court has reviewed the documents Defendant
seeks to seal and finds that it is appropriate to grant Defendant’s Motion. In conducting its
review, the court considered less-drastic alternatives to sealing Defendant’s Reply and Exhibits
E and F to Defendant’s Reply but finds no reasonable less-drastic alternative available. The
documents sought to be filed under seal contain or consist of confidential medical information
and an affidavit concerning medical information about an individual and the individual’s family.
The court has independently reviewed the documents in camera and concludes that the
documents do not lend themselves to selective redaction.
The court, therefore, grants Defendant’s Motion to Seal, ECF No. 27, and Defendant’s
Reply and Exhibits E and F to the Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. 21, are to be filed under seal.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 11, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

3