Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al.
Filing
368
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 365 MOTION by Citynet, LLC for Leave to File Exhibits K, L, and M attached to its Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review Under Seal; the Clerk is directed to seal Exhibits K, L, an d M to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review; the 365 Motion itself should not be sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/13/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 368 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7415
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 EXHIBITS K, L, AND M TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL/MOTION
FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Citynet, LLC’S Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal, (ECF No. 365), requesting Exhibits K, L, and M to its Reply in Support of its Motion
to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review be filed as sealed. The Court notes that the cited
exhibits contain confidential information. Due to the confidential nature of this
information, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal and ORDERS the Clerk to
seal Exhibits K, L, and M to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel/Motion
for In Camera Review. The Motion itself, (ECF No. 365), 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)
Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 368 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7416
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents
and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the attached exhibit 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. Moreover, the information
provided in these Exhibits 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 the cited exhibits does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court
documents. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibits K, L, and M to Plaintiff’s
Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel/Motion for In Camera Review, (ECF No. 3651-3) under seal.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: June 13, 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?