Pennington v. Fluor Corporation et al
ORDER granting 11 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/13/2017.(asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Harry Pennington, III, on behalf of himself )
and all others similarly situated,
Fluor Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., )
and SCANA Corporation,
Civil Action No.: 0:17-cv-02094-JMC
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant SCANA Corporation’s Motion to
Seal. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant seeks the court’s leave to file under seal Exhibit A to its Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 11)
In considering a motion for leave to file under seal, the court must determine whether the
party seeking to file under seal has complied with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5.03 D.S.C.
If the court finds that the party seeking leave to file under seal has complied with the requirements
of the rule, the court, in its discretion, may grant leave if it finds that the public’s right to access
the document is outweighed by the competing need to seal the document. See Ashcraft v. Conoco,
Inc., 218 F.2d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, in order to seal the document, 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 document, and (3)
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the document and for
rejecting the alternatives.” Id. “Docketing the motion in a manner that discloses its nature as a
motion to seal” satisfies the public notice requirement. Local Civil Rule 5.03(D) D.S.C.
Upon review, the court finds Defendant complied with the requirements of Local Rule
5.03. Defendant’s motion was filed on September 13, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) The motion includes a
descriptive, non-confidential description of the document Defendant seeks to file under seal. (Id.)
The document sought to be filed under seal is protected from disclosure by Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations. (ECF No. 11.) See also 10 C.F.R. § 73.56(m)(1) (2016). The time since
the motion’s filing provided a sufficient period of public notice, and no one has objected to this
document being sealed.
As required by Ashcraft, the court has considered whether less drastic alternatives to
sealing the documents exist but finds no reasonable less drastic alternative is available. Granting
leave to seal is necessary to prevent disclosure of the document. The court finds that Defendant’s
interest in non-disclosure of such information outweighs the public’s right to access the document.
Thus, the court finds that the nature of the information in the document at issue requires that the
document be sealed.
Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 11.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
October 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?