KOZEL v. KOZEL et al

Filing 389

ORDER granting 379 Motion to Seal. Counsel is directed to file exhibits under seal. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 5/22/2019.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
DAVID F. KOZEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBORAH L. KOZEL, MICHAEL E.
SPEARS, Esq., DALLAS C. KOZEL,
and INDIA L. KOZEL,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-1672-DCC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal on May 17, 2019, and provided the documents for in camera review.

ECF No. 379. Before this Court may seal the Documents, it must: (1) provide public notice of the request
to seal and allow interested parties an opportunity to object; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing;
and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings in support of the decision to seal and reject alternatives
to sealing. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
Public Notice.
The filing of this motion on the Court’s ECF system provides notice to all parties to this action as
well as public notice of Plaintiff’s request to seal. See, e.g. Local Civil Rule 5.3(D) (noting that, “[a]bsent
direction to the contrary, this [public notice] may be accomplished by docketing the motion in a manner
that discloses its nature as a motion to seal”).
Less Drastic Alternatives.
The relevant exhibits cannot be simply redacted because they are either therapy notes or reports
from mental health professionals which include sensitive, personal information regarding the then-minor
Defendants. As for the memorandum of law, Plaintiff has redacted the limited portions that quote from
these confidential exhibits and requests only that those portions of the memorandum be filed under seal.

For these reasons, it appears that there are no less drastic measures that can be taken to ensure the
confidentiality of these private Documents relating to the Defendants’ medical and psychological histories.
Reasons for the Seal.
As noted above, each of the exhibits sought to be sealed contains sensitive information. Publicly
filing the Documents does not serve the public interest, and Plaintiff understands the Kozel Defendants to
maintain that public filing may impinge upon their privacy rights. As such, they have asked the Documents
be kept confidential. See, e.g., In re The Knight Publishing Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (“The
trial court . . . may, in its discretion, seal documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by
competing interests”). Moreover, it appears from the separately sealed attachment labeled, “Confidential
Information to be Submitted to the Court in Connection with Motion to Seal,” submitted herewith for in
camera review pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.03(C), redacting the exhibits would result in the filing of
entirely blacked-out pages. In sum, the sensitive nature of the limited set of Documents at issue counsels in
favor of a seal, and the Court finds that less drastic measures (such as redaction) are not viable options. 

Upon due consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [ECF No. 379] and review of the
documents submitted in camera regarding same,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file each of the documents listed on the
chart below under seal. chart below under seal.
Exhibit
C
D
H
Memorandum
of Law

Description
Dr. Schachner’s letter dated October 11, 2005 (KozelDefs_00945)
Excerpts of Kim Rosborough’s Production
Excerpts from Spring Ridge records (Spring Ridge 000018)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Kozel Defendants’
Omnibus Motion in Limine (dated May 16, 2019) - Unredacted

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
May 22, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina
2