Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company, No. 3:2013cv06529 - Document 850 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 848 MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs' 847 Motion to Compel; directing the Clerk to seal the motion and its supporting exhibits until further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/9/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

Download PDF
Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company Doc. 850 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION CH ARLES JOH N SON , e t al., Plain tiffs , v. Cas e N o .: 3 :13 -cv-0 6 52 9 FORD MOTOR COMPAN Y, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 848), requesting that Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel along with the attached exhibits, (ECF No. 847), be sealed. Having reviewed the m otion, and for good cause shown, the court GRAN TS the Motion to Seal, at least tem porarily. 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 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 their m otion to seal, Plaintiffs contend that the m otion to com pel and attached exhibits contain m aterials previously designated as confidential under a Protective Order entered in this litigation. (ECF No. 316). Accordingly, the Clerk is ORD ERED to seal ECF No. 847 and its supporting exhibits until further order of the court. The sealed docum ents Dockets.Justia.com shall be designated as sealed on the docket, which the court deem s to be sufficient notice to interested m em bers of the public. The court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing ECF No. 847 in its entirety; however, Plaintiffs claim that the inform ation designated as confidential is scattered throughout the m otion and in the attached exhibits. The parties have not had an opportunity to review the m aterials together to determ ine what should be redacted. Accordingly, at this tim e, the m otion to com pel and attached docum ents shall be sealed in their entirety to allow that conversation to take place. Given that the parties will closely review the docum ents to determ ine what can be unsealed, the court finds that tem porarily sealing ECF No. 847, and its attachm ents, does not im properly or significantly 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 any unrepresented parties. EN TERED : Decem ber 9, 20 16

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.