Knight v. Domtar Paper Company LLC

Filing 42

ORDER re 33 MOTION to Seal. The court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Seal, ECF No. 33 . The Clerk is instructed to file these documents under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 4/10/2013. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Glinda K. Knight,
Plaintiff,

vs.
Domtar Paper Company, LLC,
Defendant.

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

C/A No.: 4:12-1797-MGL-KDW

ORDER ON
MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Glinda K. Knight’s Motion to Seal, ECF
No. 33, in which she seeks to file under seal certain documents that she wishes to use as exhibits
to her response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel (“Response”). Plaintiff filed her Motion to
Seal on March 28, 2012, the same day she filed her Response, ECF No. 32. As set forth in
Plaintiff’s Motion, she seeks to seal select pages of the transcript of her deposition and records of
her meetings with Counselor Joseph Baroody. Mot. Seal 1, ECF No. 33. No one has opposed
Plaintiff’s Motion. For the reasons set forth herein, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal.
This court’s Local Civil Rule 5.03 sets forth the following requirements regarding a
motion to seal:
(A) A party seeking to file documents under seal shall file and serve a “Motion to Seal”
accompanied by a memorandum, see Local Civil Rule 7.04, and the attachments set
forth below in (B) and (C). The memorandum shall: (1) identify, with specificity, the
documents or portions thereof for which sealing is requested; (2) state the reasons why
sealing is necessary; (3) explain (for each document or group of documents) why less
drastic alternatives to sealing will not afford adequate protection; and (4) address the
factors governing sealing of documents reflected in controlling case law. E.g., Ashcroft
v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000); and In re Knight Publishing Co., 743
F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984).

(B) The motion shall be accompanied by (1) a non-confidential descriptive index of the
documents at issue and (2) counsel’s certification of compliance with this rule.
(C) A separately sealed attachment labeled “Confidential Information to be Submitted
to Court in Connection with Motion to Seal” shall be submitted with the motion. The
sealed attachment shall contain the documents at issue for the Court’s in camera review
and shall not be filed. The Court’s docket shall reflect that the motion and memorandum
were filed and were supported by a sealed attachment submitted for in camera review.
(D) The Clerk shall provide public notice of the Motion to Seal in the manner directed
by the Court. Absent direction to the contrary, this may be accomplished by docketing
the motion in a manner that discloses its nature as a motion to seal.
(E) No settlement agreement filed with the Court shall be sealed pursuant to the terms
of this Rule.
Local Civ. R. 5.03.
In filing her Motion to Seal, Plaintiff notes and complies with the requirements of Local
Rule 5.03. See ECF No. 33. As required, Plaintiff submitted to the court for in camera review
copies of the documents she seeks to file under seal. Plaintiff indicates she also provided a copy
of these documents to Defendant’s counsel.
In considering Plaintiff’s Motion, 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.

2

The public-notice requirement has been satisfied by Plaintiff’s electronic filing of her
Motion, which includes a descriptive, non-confidential description of the documents she seeks to
have filed under seal. ECF No. 33 at 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). Plaintiff filed the motion on March 28, 2013. Defendant had until April 8, 2013 to
file any objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, see ECF No. 37, but it did not. That time period
also provided a sufficient period of public notice of this pending Motion, and no one objected to
these documents being sealed.
In conducting its review, the court considered whether less drastic alternatives to sealing
the excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition and records of Counselor Baroody exist, but finds no
reasonable less drastic alternative available. The documents sought to be filed under seal contain
or consist of confidential information, including financial and sensitive information from
counseling sessions between Plaintiff and Counselor Baroody and excerpts of Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony discussing matters of a highly sensitive nature.

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 court notes that the litigant’s interest in nondisclosure of such
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 sensitive,
personal nature of the information in the documents at issue requires that the documents be
sealed.
3

For the reasons discussed above, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, ECF No. 33.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to file these documents under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

4