Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al.
Filing
359
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 357 Motion for Leave to Seal Exhibit 1 in Support of Response to Motion to Compel; the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibit 1 to the Frontier Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review, (ECF No. 357-1), under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/3/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 359 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7175
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 EXHIBIT 1
TO FRONTIER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONTO COMPEL/MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Pending before the Court is the Frontier Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal, (ECF No. 357), requesting Exhibit 1 to their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel/Motion for In Camera Review be filed as sealed. The Court notes that the
attached exhibit contains confidential information. Due to the confidential nature of this
information, this Court GRANTS Frontier Defendants’ motion to seal and ORDERS the
Clerk to seal Exhibit 1 to the Frontier Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel/Motion for In Camera Review. (ECF No. 357-1). The Motion to Seal and Frontier
Defendant’s Response itself, (ECF Nos. 356, 357), 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
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 359 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7176
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, Exhibit 1 to the Frontier Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review 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. Moreover, the information
provided in Exhibit 1 is for the purpose of resolving a discovery dispute, rather than for
disposition of substantive claims in this action. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing
Exhibit 1 to the Frontier Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/Motion
for In Camera Review, does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court
documents. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibit 1 to the Frontier
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review,
(ECF No. 357-1), under seal.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: June 3, 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?