Collins v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS granting Defendants' 82 MOTION to File Under Seal; directing that Exhibit 4 to Defendants' 81 Response In Opposition to Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Protective Order to Stay the Subpoena of Josephine Collins be sealed and made a part of Defendants' Response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 5/11/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
SEAN C. COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01902

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and,
SCOTT HORSFIELD, Individually and as
Manager of LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to File under Seal (ECF No. 82),
requesting the attached Exhibit No. 4 be filed under seal and made a part of Defendants’
Response in Opposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order to Stay the Subpoena of
Josephine Collins. (ECF No. 81). Defendants assert that Exhibit No. 4 has been marked
as “Confidential” by Plaintiff as part of Plaintiff’s response to supplemental discovery
requests in this matter. Defendants further state that Exhibit No. 4 contains personal
information that has been deemed “Confidential” in accordance with the Agreed
Protective Order filed in this matter. Defendants request that Exhibit No. 4 (ECF No. 821), be sealed and filed as sealed to Defendants’ Response in Opposition of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Protective Order to Stay the Subpoena of Josephine Collins. Given Defendants’
representations that Exhibit No. 4 has been marked as “Confidential” in keeping with the
Agreed Protective Order and Exhibit No. 4 contains highly personal information, the
Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal and ORDERS that Exhibit No. 4 (ECF No. 82-1), be

sealed and made a part of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
to Stay the Subpoena of Josephine Collins. (ECF No. 81).
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, Exhibit No. 4 to Defendants’
Response 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 document, but in view of the confidential nature of
the information, and the fact that the information is interspersed throughout Exhibit No.
4, no such alternatives are feasible at this time. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing
Exhibit No. 4 to Defendants’ Response in Opposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order to Stay the Subpoena of Josephine Collins 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: May 11, 2018