Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al.
Filing
339
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 333 and 336 Motions to Seal are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the Clerk is directed to file ECF Nos. 333-1 through 333-25 and ECF Nos. 336-1 through 336-8 UNDER SEAL; ECF Nos. 332, 333, 334, 336 and 337 should be filed, unsealed, on the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 5/24/2022. (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 CERTAIN EXHIBITS
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the
Motion to Compel/Motion for in Camera Review and Exhibits A-E and G-X, (ECF Nos.
333, 333-1 through 333-25), and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits Y-AE to
Plaintiff’s May 19, 2022 Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review and Exhibits.
(ECF Nos. 336, 336-1 through 336-8). Both Motions to Seal have supporting
memoranda. (ECF Nos. 334, 337). The Court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part,
the Motions. (ECF Nos. 333, 336). The Court finds that some, but not all, of the
documents filed by Plaintiff contain confidential information. The motions themselves
and the supporting memoranda do not require sealing. Accordingly, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s motions to seal the following documents—ECF Nos. 332, 333, 334, 336 and
337—as there is nothing in these documents that is confidential, protected, or
otherwise merits sealing. These documents should be filed, unsealed, on the docket.
On the other hand, the exhibits attached to the motions do contain confidential
information. Moreover, this information is being submitted to the Court for purposes
of a discovery dispute only. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to seal
as to ECF Nos. 333-1 through 333-25 and ECF Nos. 336-1 through 336-8.
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 specified exhibits
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.
Furthermore, as previously stated, these documents are currently before the Court as
part of a discovery dispute, which limits the public’s right to access them. Accordingly,
the Court finds that sealing the specified exhibits does not unduly prejudice the public’s
right to access court documents.
Therefore, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file ECF Nos. 333-1 through 333-25 and
ECF Nos. 336-1 through 336-8 UNDER SEAL, as they are confidential documents
exchanged during the discovery process. It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: May 24, 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?