McKelvey v. WRJ Staff et al, No. 3:2013cv22206 - Document 100 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT directing that the exhibit attached to Plaintiff's 99 MOTION to Compel be SEALED; the sealed exhibit should be provided to Anspach Meeks Ellenberger LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/31/2014. (cc: Plaintiff, attys) (mkw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION JAMEL MCKELVEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:13-cv-22206 WRJ STAFF, WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants . MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT Plaintiff has filed an exhibit in support of his Motion to Compel in the instant matter. The exhibit pertains to a document concerning HIPAA Authorization 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. (ECF No. 99). Due to the highly confidential nature of the exhibit, this Court ORDERS the exhibit to be 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 exhibit 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 highly confidential and specially protected nature of the record, as well as the extent of the private information contained therein, no such alternatives are feasible at this time. Moreover, the exhibit pertains to highly personal matters which have no particular relevance to the general public. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the exhibit until proper redactions can be made does not unduly or significantly prejudice the public s right to access them. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to counsel of record. In addition, the sealed exhibit should be provided to Anspach Meeks Ellenberger LLC. ENTERED: July 31, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.