E & G Inc v. Mount Vernon Mills Inc et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 48 Motion to Seal. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 12/18/2017.(abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
E & G, INC., individually and as the )
representative of a class of similarly- )
situated persons,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
MOUNT VERNON MILLS, INC. and )
JOHN DOES 1-5,
)
)
)
Defendants.

C/A No. 6:17-CV-00318-DCC

ORDER FOR FILING SUPPORTING
EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.’s (“Defendant”)
Consent Motion to File Supporting Exhibit under Seal (ECF No. 48). For the reasons set forth in
this Order, Defendant’s Consent Motion is granted and Defendant is permitted to file the
Supporting Exhibit under Seal.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff E&G, Inc. filed a Complaint against Defendant on February 2, 2017. ECF No. 1.
Thereafter, the Court entered its Joint Amended Scheduling Order on June 1, 2017 (ECF 38),
thereby bifurcating discovery, and setting a deadline for Defendant to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment.1 Due to the parties’ concerns about the confidential nature of certain documents at
issue, the parties requested, and the Court entered, a Confidentiality Order filed June 1, 2017 (ECF
37, the “Confidentiality Order”). The Confidentiality Order directs the parties to file a Motion,
such as this Motion, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.03 (D.S.C.) if a confidential document must

1

The deadline for filing a Motion for Summary Judgment has been moved twice pursuant to the
Second Consent Amended Scheduling Order (ECF 42) and Third Consent Amended Scheduling
Order (ECF 46).

be filed.
Defendant has now filed a Consent Motion to File Supporting Exhibit under Seal and has
submitted the exhibit for the Court’s in camera review. The exhibit is a Worldwide Sourcing
Agreement dated March 1, 2014 (the “Sourcing Agreement”) by and between Worldwide Sourcing
Solutions, Inc. (“WSSI”) and Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.
The Sourcing Agreement contains sensitive commercial information pertaining to
Wyndham Hotel Group’s franchising system and sourcing program.
LEGAL STANDARD
In Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), the Fourth Circuit recognized
that a U.S. District Court has “supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion,
seal documents if the public’s right or access is outweighed by competing interests.” See also In
re Knight Publishing, 743 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1984). There is a presumption in favor of public
access to court records. Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302. A U.S. District Court, however, has discretion
to seal court records if: (1) it gives public notice of the request to seal so as to allow interested
parties a reasonable opportunity to object; (2) it considers less drastic alternatives to sealing the
documents; and (3) it provides specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal
the documents and for rejecting alternatives. Id.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Turning to the instant action, the Court finds that it is appropriate to seal the documents at
issue based on these three criteria.
Regarding the first criteria, Local Civil Rule 5.03(D) (D.S.C.) provides that the docketing
of a motion to seal in a manner that discloses its nature constitutes public notice of the motion.

2

Regarding the second criteria, due to the intertwining nature of the provisions of the
Sourcing Agreement, it would be difficult to adequately redact all the potentially sensitive
information while retaining the necessary context of the provisions. The Sourcing Agreement
contains sensitive commercial information regarding Wyndham’s franchising system and sourcing
program. Therefore, there are no less drastic alternatives other than sealing the document.
Regarding the third criteria, the Sourcing Agreement concerns matters that might give an
advantage to Wyndham’s competitors if made to be publically available knowledge. Therefore,
the public’s right to obtain this information is outweighed by the competing interest of Wyndham
in keeping its commercial secrets safe.
Accordingly, in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.03 (D.S.C.), the Court orders that the
Memorandum and Exhibits may be filed with the Court under seal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Consent Motion to File Supporting Exhibit
under Seal is hereby granted. Defendant may file the Sourcing Agreement under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

December 18, 2017
Spartanburg, South Carolina

3