Chafin v. Hunter et al
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the jury trial held October 10-12, 2012, the court reporter is directed to accomplish the following redactions of the transcript as forth herein; directing that the unredacted version of the aforementioned pages herein be filed under seal. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/9/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
APRIL TOMBLIN CHAFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:11-0034
LOGAN COUNTY COMMISSION and
LOGAN COUNTY HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT and
JOHN REED,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was tried to a jury on October 10, 2012.
On October 12, 2012, a verdict was returned in plaintiff’s favor.
During her testimony, witness Sherry Frye-Cochran
accused certain third parties of committing acts of moral
turpitude or criminal misconduct.
There is one instance in which
counsel for the plaintiff mentioned a correctional officer in the
same manner.1
Assuming that a trial transcript qualifies for
protection under both the common-law and First Amendment rights
of public access to judicial records and documents, there are
It may be the case that the correctional officer’s identity
is known in the event that the matter became the subject of a
separate civil action by Ms. Frye-Cochran. If that is the case,
the court will entertain a motion to unseal the individual’s
identity.
1
narrow instances where a sealing order might properly issue.
For
example, our court of appeals once observed as follows:
[W]e note that the court has the power to insure that
its records are not used to “promote public scandal,”
and we agree with the district court's finding that the
excised material is “impertinent and scandalous to one
or more persons” mentioned in the documents.
In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 236 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting
in part Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
(1978)).
The court concludes that a sealing order is proper to
the limited extent of redacting the identities of those third
parties mentioned by Ms. Frye-Cochran and during the closing
argument of counsel for the plaintiff.
Additionally, to avoid
contextual clues, the entirety of one line of the transcript will
be redacted as well.
Accordingly, the court reporter is directed
to accomplish the following redactions of the transcript:
Page
Line reference
339
Entirety of line 20.
364
Name found in line 11.
343
366
383
383
495
Names found in lines 8-9.
Name found in line 17.
Name found in line 8.
Name found in line 11.
Name found in line 1.
2
It is further ORDERED that the unredacted version of
the aforementioned pages be, and it hereby is, filed under seal.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented
parties.
DATED:
November 9, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
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?