Wilson et al v. MRO Corporation et al, No. 2:2016cv05279 - Document 119 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS granting the 117 MOTION to File Reply in Response to Defendant CIOX Health, LLC's, Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, including Exhibits, Under Seal; directing that Pl aintiffs' Reply, including any exhibits attached thereto, to defendant CIOX Health, LLC's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, be sealed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/31/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
Wilson et al v. MRO Corporation et al Doc. 119 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA CH ARLESTON D IVISION TH OMAS M. W ILSON , SR., e t al., Plain tiffs , v. Cas e N o . 2 :16 -cv-0 52 79 MRO CORPORATION , a Pe n n s ylvan ia co rp o ratio n , e t al., D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER SEALIN G D OCU MEN TS Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Reply in Response to Defendant CIOX Health, LLC’s, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel Discovery, Including Exhibits, Under Seal. (ECF No. 117). Plaintiffs assert that they m ust incorporate in and attach to their reply m em orandum inform ation that has been designated as confidential. They request that their reply m em orandum and attachm ents be sealed due to the nature of the inform ation contained therein. Given Plaintiffs’ representations and the fact that the m em orandum involves a discovery dispute, rather than a dispositive issue, this Court GRAN TS the Motion and ORD ERS that Plaintiffs’ Reply, including any exhibits attached thereto, to defendant CIOX Health, LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel Discovery, be sealed. The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent recognizing a presum ption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 20 0 0 ). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a Dockets.Justia.com docum ent, the Court m ust follow a three step process: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the docum ent; and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the docum ents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 30 2. In this case, Plaintiffs’ Reply, along with the attached exhibits, shall be sealed and will be designated as sealed on the Court’s docket. The Court deem s this sufficient notice to interested m em bers of the public. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the docum ents, but in view of the alleged confidential nature of the inform ation, and the fact that the inform ation is interspersed throughout the m em orandum and attachm ents, no such alternatives are feasible at this tim e. Moreover, the public’s right to the inform ation is m inim al at this point given that the docum ents are part of a discovery m otion, and not a dispositive m otion. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Ciox Health, LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel Discovery Against Defendant Ciox Health, LLC, does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court docum ents. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. EN TERED : J anuary 31, 20 17

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.