Pax Mondial Limited et al v. Afghan Resources Group et al
Filing
100
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan on 7/27/12. (gwal, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
PAX MONDIAL LIMITED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AFGHAN RESOURCES GROUP,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 1:11cv1347
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion for
Protective Order (Dkt. 84) and the Motion Limiting the Scope of
its Requested Protective Order (Dkt. 94) filed by defendants
Afghan Resources Group, Nadim Amin, and Resources & Solutions
LLC (“defendants”).
Also before the Court is plaintiff Pax
Mondial Limited’s Cross Motion to File Documents Under Seal
(Dkt. 88).
At issue is whether to seal pleadings and exhibits
filed in connection with defendants’ Motion to Dissolve
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 76) and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 74).
I.
Background
After a July 20, 2012 hearing at which the undersigned
ordered the parties to propose narrowed redactions, defendants
now concede that “no motions filed to date, or the exhibits
thereto, should be sealed or redacted.”
(ARG’s Mot. Objecting
to Pax’s Proposed Redactions (Dkt. 99) at 2.)
Pax Mondial
Limited (“Pax”) now proposes redacting from the pleadings the
following: (1) portions of defendants’ motions and reply briefs;
(2) portions of the arbitrator’s Partial Final Award and
Preliminary Award; (3) Exhibits C and E to defendants’ Reply to
Pax Mondial’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve
Preliminary Injunction; (4) any portions of the arbitration
hearing transcript not specifically cited by the parties’
pleadings; and (5) various transcript lines from the May 14-18
and July 3 arbitration hearings.
(Pax’s Reply Supp. Cross Mot.
to File Docs. Under Seal (Dkt. 98).)
II.
Analysis
“Under common law, there is a presumption of access
accorded to judicial records.”
Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine,
Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).
This presumption of
access can be overcome “if countervailing interests heavily
outweigh the public interests in access.”
Id.
Even then,
“[t]he public’s right of access to judicial records and
documents may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances.”
Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 182
(4th Cir. 1988).
Documents filed in connection with a summary judgment
motion, however, give rise to the more rigorous First Amendment
right of access.
Rushford, 846 F.2d at 252-53.
Under the First
Amendment, “denial of access must be necessitated by a
compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to serve
that interest.”
Id. at 253.
The undersigned has reviewed Pax’s submissions and
considered its arguments in support of its request to seal
certain materials.
Applying both the common law and First
Amendment rights of access, the undersigned sees nothing that
should remain under seal.
Accordingly, all documents heretofore
filed under seal shall be unsealed.
An appropriate order shall
issue.
ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2012.
/s/
THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alexandria, Virginia
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?