Pelczynski et al v. Orange Lake Country Club Inc

Filing 115

ORDER temporarily granting 113 Motion to Seal. Should no objections by filed by 10/28/2013, the temporary order will automatically convert to a permanent order to seal. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/21/2013. (hcic)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Dennis Pelczynski, David Black,
Michael Anderson, Rhodes Coman,
Marc Nichols, Daniel Schmidt, and
John Vinson,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., and )
OLCC South Carolina, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-01829-RBH

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendants Orange Lake Country
Club, Inc. and OLCC South Carolina, LLC to file certain attachments to their response to Plaintiffs’
motion for attorney’s fees under seal. ECF No. 113. The Court has reviewed the filings and
attachments submitted on this matter. In accordance with In re Knight Publishing Company, 743
F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984), the Court grants the 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 October 28,
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 October 28, 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 case, as the documents concern

Plaintiffs fee agreements with their counsel. The Court has independently reviewed the documents
in camera and concludes that the documents do not lend themselves to selective redaction.
The Court finds persuasive the arguments of counsel in favor of sealing the documents and
rejecting the alternatives. The documents contain confidential information regarding Plaintiffs’
legal representation in this matter. The Court notes that the litigants’ interest in nondisclosure of
such proprietary information outweighs the public’s right to access to these documents. See May v.
Medtronic Inc., No. CA 6:05-794-HMH, 2006 WL 1328765, *1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2006). The
confidential and sensitive nature of the information in the documents at issue requires that the
documents be sealed. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 113) in
accordance with the limitations stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
October 21, 2013

2