Wilson v. United States et al

Filing 229

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT granting Defendants' 228 MOTION to File Supplemental Disclosure Under Seal; directing that the exhibits attached to the motion be filed as SEALED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/18/2020. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (jsa)

Case 3:18-cv-00890 Document 229 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3053

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
TAMMY SHERRELL WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00890

WEXFORD MEDICAL and
ADMINISTRATION/STAFF
AT FAULT, (1990 through present);
WARDEN LORI NOHE; J. D. SALLAZ;
SUSAN BIRDSONG; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER CHERYL SPENCER;
NATHAN BALL; BETSY JIVIDEN;
CANDY DAVIS; C. J. RIDER; and
HEIDI BEEGLE, R.N.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
SEALING DOCUMENT
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to File Supplemental Disclosure
Under Seal. (ECF No. 228). Having reviewed the motion and attached exhibits, the Court
ORDERS that the exhibits attached to the motion, (ECF N0s. 228-1, 228-2), 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)

Case 3:18-cv-00890 Document 229 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3054

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 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 Exhibit, but no alternatives to sealing the document are
feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be informed is outweighed, at this stage of the
litigation, by the interests to be protected in this circumstance. Accordingly, the Court
finds that sealing only the 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 plaintiff and all
counsel of record.
ENTERED: December 18, 2020