McLaughlin v. CSX Transportation Inc

Filing 59

ORDER granting 45 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 53 Motion to Strike; granting 30 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer as unopposed. Defendant is directed to file its Amended Answer within five (5) days of the date of this Order; granting 39 Motion to Seal; and granting 46 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III, on 08/04/2016.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
MICHELLE McLAUGHLIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
CSX TRANSPORTATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-0245-RBH-TER

ORDER

This is an employment discrimination case brought pursuant to Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and 42
U.S.C. § 1981. Presently before the court are Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Answer (Document # 30), Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Document # 39), Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Excess Pages (Document # 45), Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Document # 46), and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Document # 53). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to
the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(g), DSC.
First, Defendant seeks to file an amended answer. Although Plaintiff initially filed a response
in opposition to this motion, she now seeks to strike that opposition. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Strike (Document # 53) is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Answer (Document # 30) is GRANTED as unopposed. Defendant is directed to file its Amended
Answer within five days of the date of this order.
Both Defendant and Plaintiff seek to file under seal Plaintiff’s medical records that are cited
in their respective motion and response. Both parties have forwarded the documents at issue to the

Court for an in camera review pursuant to Local Rule 5.04(C), DSC. In addition, pursuant to Local
Rule 5.04(A), they have filed supporting memoranda (1) identifying, with specificity, the documents
or portions thereof for which sealing is requested; (2) stating the reasons why sealing is necessary;
(3) explaining (for each document or group of documents) why less drastic alternatives to sealing
will not afford adequate protection; and (4) addressing 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).
Sealing of the documents at issue is required pursuant to electronic filing rule 14.4.3 which
mandates that “medical records, treatment records, or diagnosis” be filed under seal. Redaction is not
possible given the nature of the documents. Accordingly, sealing of the documents is necessary to
protect such confidential information and allow it to not become disseminated to the general public.
Public notice has been satisfied through docketing of the parties’ Motions to Seal. See Local Civil
Rule 5.03(D), D.S.C. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Document # 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion

to Seal (Document # 46) are GRANTED. The Clerk’s office is directed to file the documents at
issue under seal and as additional attachments to the respective motion for summary judgment or
response.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a response to the motion for summary judgment in excess
of thirty-five pages, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.05(B). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Excess Pages (Document # 45) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
August 4, 2016
Florence, South Carolina
-2-