McKinney v. Thomas et al
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice the plaintiff's 101 MOTION requesting leave to file in camera or under seal her response and the exhibits to defendant Thomas' 52 motion for summary judgment; the plaintiff is directed to submit a revised sealing request, taking into consideration the alternatives to sealing (such as redaction) for those portions of the documents for which confidentiality is unnecessary, and bearing in mind that sealing is the infrequ ent exception and not the rule; the sealing request to be submitted by 6/25/2014; plaintiff's response to Thomas' motion for summary judgment to remain provisionally sealed, pending the plaintiff's response to this order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/18/2014. (cc: attys) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
AMANDA MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-14403
C.O. GEORGE THOMAS, individually and in
his official capacity as a correctional
officer of The West Virginia Regional Jail
and Correctional Facility Authority, and
C.O. WILLIAM WILSON, individually and in
his official capacity as a correctional
officer of The West Virginia Regional Jail
and Correctional Facility Authority, and
C.O. MATTHEW VANDALL, individually and in
his official capacity as a correctional
officer of The West Virginia Regional Jail
and Correctional Facility Authority, and
CHIEF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LT. LARRY BUNTING,
individually and in his official capacity, and
THE WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY
an agency of the State of West Virginia,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is the plaintiff’s motion, filed June 17,
2014, requesting leave to file in camera or under seal her
response (and the exhibits attached to that response) to
defendant Thomas’ motion for summary judgment (“motion to
seal”).
In support, the plaintiff only states that “[t]his
motion is grounded in the public policy of maintaining the
confidentiality of the personal and private information
contained in the exhibits and the Protective Order.”
The court first notes that “[p]ublicity of [court]
. . . records . . . is necessary in the long run so that the
public can judge the product of the courts in a given case.”
Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203
F.3d 291, 303 (4th Cir. 2000).
The right of public access to
court documents derives from two separate sources: the common
law and the First Amendment.
The common law right affords
presumptive access to all judicial records and documents.
Nixon
v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Stone v.
University of Md. Medical Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th
Cir. 1988).
Submitted documents within the common law right may
be sealed, however, if competing interests outweigh the public’s
right of access.
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99, 602-03; In re
Knight Publishing Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
observed that exhibits to summary judgment motions deserve
special consideration for public access:
[I]n Rushford[ v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d
249 (4th Cir. 1988),] we considered the propriety of a
district court’s order sealing documents that were
attached to a successful summary judgment motion.
Although the documents had been the subject of a
pretrial discovery protective order, we observed that
once the documents were made part of a dispositive
motion, they lost their status as being “raw fruits of
discovery,” and that discovery, “which is ordinarily
conducted in private, stands on a wholly different
footing than does a motion filed by a party seeking
action by the court.” After noting that summary
judgment “serves as a substitute for a trial” and that
we had held in a prior case that the First Amendment
standard should apply to documents filed in connection
with plea and sentencing hearings in criminal cases,
we held that “the more rigorous First Amendment
standard should also apply to documents filed in
connection with a summary judgment motion in a civil
case.”
Although we recognized that “there may be instances in
which discovery materials should be kept under seal
even after they are made part of a dispositive
motion,” we stated that the district court must make
that determination “at the time it grants a summary
judgment motion and not merely allow continued effect
to a pretrial discovery protective order.” We noted
that “[t]he reasons for granting a protective order to
facilitate pre-trial discovery may or may not be
sufficient to justify proscribing the First Amendment
right of access to judicial documents,” and we
remanded the case to the district court in order for
it to determine under the appropriate substantive and
procedural standards whether the documents should
remain sealed.
Id. at 576-77 (citations omitted).
The plaintiff has not made the showing necessary to
obtain a sealing order as to her response to Thomas’ motion for
summary judgment.
In the interests of justice, however, the
court will provide the plaintiff a further opportunity to make
3
the required showing no later than June 25, 2014.
The best
practice in a situation such as this is twofold.
First, the
plaintiff should submit to the court, in detail, her best
justifications for a sealing order.
Second, rather than seeking
a sealing order as to all the materials in their entirety, the
plaintiff must present with her justification for sealing a set
of redacted briefing and/or exhibits that would, in the parties’
estimation, be suitable for viewing on the public docket.
This
approach recognizes the need for confidentiality as to some
material while at the same time assuring that the narrow
exception for secrecy extends no further than absolutely
necessary in a given case.
The right of public access is
paramount.
The court notes that the plaintiff has already filed
as sealed both her response to Thomas’ motion for summary
judgment and the exhibits attached to that response, presumably
because the response was due on the same day the motion to seal
was filed.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
That the motion to seal be, and it hereby is, denied
without prejudice;
2.
That the plaintiff be, and she hereby is, directed to
4
submit a revised sealing request, taking into consideration
the alternatives to sealing (such as redaction) for those
portions of the documents for which confidentiality is
unnecessary, and bearing in mind that sealing is the
infrequent exception and not the rule; and
3.
That the aforementioned sealing request be, and it
hereby is, directed to be submitted by June 25, 2014.
4.
The plaintiff’s response to Thomas’ motion for
summary judgment shall remain provisionally sealed, pending
the plaintiff’s response to this order.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record.
DATED: June 18, 2014
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
5
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?