Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al.
Filing
249
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 247 MOTION by Kenneth Arndt, Frontier West Virginia, Inc., Mark McKenzie, Dana Waldo for Leave to File Under Seal; the Clerk is directed to seal Defendants' Reply only; the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Reply (ECF No. 247-1) under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 3/28/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CITYNET, LLC, on behalf of
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 2:14-cv-15947
FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SEALING REPLY
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (ECF
No. 247), requesting its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order be filed as sealed. The Court notes that the attached Reply contains confidential
information. Due to the confidential nature of this information, this Court GRANTS
Defendants’ motion to seal and ORDERS the Clerk to seal Defendants’ Reply. The
Motion itself, (ECF No. 247), should not be sealed.
The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent
recognizing a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v.
Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a
document, the Court must follow a three-step process: (1) provide public notice of the
request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the document; and (3)
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents
and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the reply shall be sealed and will be
designated as sealed on the Court’s docket. The Court deems this sufficient notice to
interested members of the public. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to
sealing the document, but in view of the nature of the information set forth in the
document—which is information generally protected from public release—alternatives to
wholesale sealing are not feasible at this time. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing
the reply does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents.
Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Reply (ECF No. 247-1) under seal.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: March 28, 2022
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?