Latham v. United States of America

Filing 302

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT as to Rasheed T. Latham; granting United States' 301 MOTION to Seal Response and Exhibits; directing that Respondent's 303 Response and all exhibits attached thereto be filed as SEALED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/8/2018. (cc: Judge, Movant, counsel of record) (jsa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
RASHEED T. LATHAM,
Movant,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-03998
Case No. 3:15-cr-00145-03

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
SEALING DOCUMENT
Pending is Respondent’s Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 301), requesting to file under
seal, its Response and all exhibits attached thereto. According to Respondent, the
Response and attached exhibits contain sensitive information, which has been designated
as confidential by Respondent. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the Response and
attached exhibits, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that Respondent’s
Response and all exhibits attached thereto be filed as 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 attached document 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 Response and attached exhibits, but no alternatives to
sealing the document are feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be informed is greatly
outweighed by the interests to be protected in this circumstance. Accordingly, the Court
finds that sealing Respondent’s Response and the attached exhibits does not unduly
prejudice the public’s right to access court documents.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Movant and all counsel
of record.
ENTERED: January 8, 2018