Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al.
Filing
315
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING DEFENDANTS' REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS directing that Defendants' 313 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Replies in Support of Their Second and Third Motions for Protective O rder is GRANTED; the Clerk is directed to file Defendants' Reply in Support of their Second Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 313-1), as sealed, Defendants' Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 313-2), as sealed and Exhibit 3 to Defendants' Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order as unsealed; the Motion itself (ECF No. 313), should not be sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 4/28/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (btm)
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 315 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4325
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 315 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4326
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 Replies in Support of
Defendants’ Second and Third Motions for Protective Order 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 documents, but in view of the nature of the information set forth in the
documents—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 Replies in Support of Defendants’ Second and Third Motions for Protective Order
does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents. Accordingly, the
Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Replies in Support of Defendants’ Second and Third
Motions for Protective Order, (ECF Nos. 313-1 and 2), under seal.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: April 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?