Fredeking et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING EXHIBITS granting Defendant's 71 MOTION to Seal Exhibits; directing that Exhibit A and B to Defendant's 70 Response to Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Order Compelling Discovery be sealed and mad e a part of Defendant's Response; further directing that the Clerk correct the case docket to reflect Defendant's correct name: Chase Bank USA, N.A. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 4/24/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
R.R. FREDEKING, II and
DEBBIE FREDEKING,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-12415

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING EXHIBITS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.’s1 Motion to Seal,
(ECF No. 71), requesting that documents designated as Exhibits A and B to Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Order Compelling Discovery, (ECF No. 70), and
attached to the Motions to Seal be sealed and incorporated in the response. Defendant
argues that the exhibits contain proprietary business information, which has been
properly designated as such pursuant to a protective order.
Given that the exhibits are submitted in support of a discovery motion, and not in
support of a dispositive motion, and given that objections to the confidential designation
of these documents have not been addressed by the Court and the parties, the Court
GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS Exhibit A and B be sealed and made a part of

As stated in recent filings, (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72) defendant has notified the Court that defendant is
incorrectly identified in this matter as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. According to defendant, the correct
identity is Chase Bank USA, N.A. Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that the Clerk correct the case
docket to reflect Defendant’s correct name: Chase Bank USA, N.A.

1

Defendant’s Response. 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, Exhibits A and B
attached to Defendant’s Motion to Seal 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 proprietary nature of the information, and the format on which the
information is contained, no such alternatives are feasible at this time. Moreover, the
public’s right to be informed regarding the particulars of a discovery motion is outweighed
by the business interests of the corporate party to be protected in this circumstance.
Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the designated exhibits to Defendant’s Motion
to Seal 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
to any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: April 24, 2018