Lucas et al v. Allen et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT directing the 15 additional documents in support of complainy to be sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 3/12/2015. (cc: Plaintiff) (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
ANGEL MARIE LUCAS, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-29289

FAYE ALLEN, et. al.,
Defendants .
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS IN
SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has filed additional documentation in support of her Complaint in the
instant matter. (ECF No. 15). The supporting documentation includes documents for
which privacy protection redactions should have been made, but were not made as
required by Fed.R.Civ.P 5.2 and the Local Rules of this District. Due to the highly
confidential nature of the information contained in the documents, this Court
ORDERS the documents to 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)
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the
documents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the documents 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 highly confidential and
specially protected nature of the records, as well as the extent of the private information
contained therein, no such alternatives are feasible at this time. Moreover, the
documents pertain to highly personal matters which have no particular relevance to the
general public. or to the resolution of the pending legal matter. Accordingly, the Court
finds that sealing the documents does not unduly or significantly prejudice the public’s
right to access court records.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff.
ENTERED: March 12, 2015