WD-I Associates LLC v. Calvert Retail LP

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Seal. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 08/24/2017.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
WD-1 Associates, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Calvert Retail, L.P.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 9:17-cv-2218-PMD
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on WD-1 Associates, LLC’s motion to seal (ECF No. 6).
WD-1 Associates asks the Court for permission to file a partially redacted complaint and to file,
under seal, a lease agreement that is referenced in the complaint and attached to it as an exhibit.
A party wishing to file a document under seal must first obtain this Court’s approval. See
Local Civ. Rule 5.03 (D.S.C.). WD-1 Associates did not follow that “mandatory procedure.” Id.
Instead, on August 18, 2017, it filed a partially redacted complaint that omitted the lease as an
exhibit. It then filed its motion to seal five days later. “Failure to obtain prior approval . . . shall
result in summary denial of any request or attempt to seal filed documents.” Id. Therefore, the
Court WD-1 Associates’ motion is DENIED. 1 Within five days of this order, WD-1 shall file an
unredacted copy of the complaint that includes the lease.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 24, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
______________________________________________________________________________
1.
Even if Local Civil Rule 5.03 did not mandate denial, the Court would still deny WD-1 Associates’ motion.
The sole relief WD-1 Associates seeks here is a declaratory judgment regarding the parties’ rights and obligations
under the lease. WD-1 Associates wants the complaint redacted, and the lease sealed, because the lease contains a
confidentiality provision and because it purportedly contains economically sensitive information. The Court has
previously found such grounds fail to rebut the common-law presumption of public access to court proceedings. See
GDMB Operations LLC v. Grande Dunes Dev. Co., No. 2:17-cv-585-PMD, slip op. (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2017); Higdon
v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 8:14-cv-3737-HMH, 2014 WL 12613270, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 10, 2014). So too
here.