Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 876

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting Defendant Ford Motor Company's #875 MOTION to Seal Deposition of Paul Szuszman; directing the Clerk to seal Exhibit G to Defendant's #859 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszman until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/18/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
CHARLES JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-06529

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Seal
Deposition of Paul Szuszman, (ECF No. 875), requesting that Exhibit G to Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszman
(ECF No. 859-7), be sealed. Having reviewed the motion, and for good cause shown, the
Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. 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 their motion to seal, Defendant contends that Exhibit G to Defendant’s
Response contains materials previously designated as confidential under a Protective
Order entered in this litigation. (ECF No. 316). Accordingly, the Clerk is ORDERED to

seal Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Continued
Deposition of Paul Szuszman, (ECF No. 859-7) until further order of the Court. The sealed
document shall be designated as sealed on the docket, which the Court deems to be
sufficient notice to interested members of the public. The Court has considered less
drastic alternatives to sealing ECF No. 859-7 in its entirety; however, Defendant claims
that the information designated as confidential is scattered throughout the exhibit. In
view of the confidential nature of the information, and the format on which the
information is contained, no such alternatives are feasible at this time. Accordingly, the
Court finds that sealing Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszman does not unduly prejudice the public’s right
to access court documents.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: January 18, 2017