Broadnax v. United States of America et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT directing the exhibits attached to the 1 Complaint to be sealed until appropriate redactions can me made by Plaintiff; directing Plaintiff to re-submit the exhibits within 14 days of the date of this Order, with the requisite redactions as specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 and the Local Rules of this District. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 3/4/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, attys) (mkw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
ETHELBERT BROADNAX,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02460

UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA,
HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, V.A.M.C.,
BECKELY, WEST VIRGINIA, V.A.M.C.,
and WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendants .
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT
Plaintiff has filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1), with attached exhibits in the instant
matter. The exhibits include 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. Given the confidential information contained in the exhibits, this Court
ORDERS the exhibits to be sealed until appropriate redactions can be made by
Plaintiff.
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 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 highly confidential and
specially protected nature of the record, no such alternatives are feasible at this time.
Plaintiff shall be ordered to re-file the exhibits with the proper redactions made at which
time any information not protected or confidential shall be made available to the public.
Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the exhibits only temporarily prevents public
disclosure of relevant information and thus will not unduly or significantly prejudice the
public’s right of access to court records.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to re-submit the exhibits within fourteen (14) days of
the date of this Order, with the requisite redactions as specified in Fed.R.Civ.P 5.2
and the Local Rules of this District.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to
counsel of record.
ENTERED: March 4, 2015