Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al, No. 2:2014cv15947 - Document 315 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING DEFENDANTS' REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS directing that Defendants' 313 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Replies in Support of Their Second and Third Motions for Protective O rder is GRANTED; the Clerk is directed to file Defendants' Reply in Support of their Second Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 313-1), as sealed, Defendants' Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 313-2), as sealed and Exhibit 3 to Defendants' Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order as unsealed; the Motion itself (ECF No. 313), should not be sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 4/28/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Citynet, LLC v. Frontier West Virginia, Inc., et al Doc. 315 Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 315 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4325 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:14-cv-15947 Document 315 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4326 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 Replies in Support of Defendants’ Second and Third Motions for Protective Order 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 nature of the information set forth in the documents—which is information generally protected from public release—alternatives to wholesale sealing are not feasible at this time. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the Replies in Support of Defendants’ Second and Third Motions for Protective Order does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Replies in Support of Defendants’ Second and Third Motions for Protective Order, (ECF Nos. 313-1 and 2), under seal. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTERED: April 28, 2022
]]>
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.
