Howard v. Allen University et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting #78 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/18/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Dr. Walter C. Howard,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Allen University, Dr. Charles E. Young,
and Dr. Pamela M. Wilson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:11-2214-MBS-SVH

ORDER

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Walter C. Howard (“Plaintiff”) is
suing his former employer Allen University (“Allen”) and two Allen employees, Dr.
Charles E. Young (“Dr. Young”) and Dr. Pamela M. Wilson (“Dr. Wilson”), in their
individual capacities (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges a retaliation claim
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title
VII”) and a defamation claim under South Carolina law. All pretrial proceedings were
referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g).
This matter comes before the court on the motion of Defendants to file two
deposition exhibits, attached to their motion for summary judgment, under seal. [Entry
#78]. The court has reviewed the brief submitted on this matter and notes that Plaintiff
consents to the motion. In accordance with In re Knight Publishing Company, 743 F.2d
231 (4th Cir. 1984), the court grants the foregoing motion to seal on a temporary basis.

Because In re Knight requires the court to provide public notice of a party’s request to
seal and allow interested parties an opportunity to object, this order temporarily grants the
motion to seal until July 18, 2013. If in the interim period any interested party wishes to
object to the permanent sealing of the documents at issue, that party may file a notice of
appearance and state its objections. In the event any objections are filed, the court will
schedule a hearing on the motion to seal and hear the arguments of all parties. Should no
objections be filed by July 18, 2013, the temporary order will automatically convert to a
permanent order to seal.
The court considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the requested documents.
The court found that less drastic alternatives were not appropriate in this employment
case, as counsel for Defendants represented that the documents at issue contain
confidential and sensitive personnel information regarding employees of Allen, including
salary information and recommendations for elimination of positions and/or salary
adjustments. The court has independently reviewed the documents in camera and
concludes that the documents do not lend itself to selective redaction.
The court finds persuasive the arguments of counsel in favor of sealing the
documents and rejecting the alternatives. The records contain confidential personnel
information that would damage Allen if disclosed. The court notes that the litigant’s
interest in nondisclosure of such proprietary information outweighs the public’s right to
access to this document. See May v. Medtronic Inc., No. CA 6:05-794-HMH, 2006 WL
1328765, *1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2006). The confidential, financial, and sensitive nature of
the personnel information in the documents at issue requires that the documents be
2

sealed. Therefore, the court grants the motion to seal [Entry #78] in accordance with the
limitations stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 18, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3