Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company, No. 3:2013cv06529 - Document 876 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting Defendant Ford Motor Company's 875 MOTION to Seal Deposition of Paul Szuszman; directing the Clerk to seal Exhibit G to Defendant's 859 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszman until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/18/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company Doc. 876 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 Defendant Ford Motor Com pany’s Motion to Seal Deposition of Paul Szuszm an, (ECF No. 875), requesting that Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszm an (ECF No. 859-7), be sealed. Having reviewed the m otion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRAN TS the Motion to Seal. 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, Defendant contends that Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response contains m aterials previously designated as confidential under a Protective Order entered in this litigation. (ECF No. 316). Accordingly, the Clerk is ORD ERED to Dockets.Justia.com seal Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszm an, (ECF No. 859-7) until further order of the Court. The sealed docum ent 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. 859-7 in its entirety; however, Defendant claims that the inform ation designated as confidential is scattered throughout the exhibit. In view of the confidential nature of the inform ation, and the form at on which the inform ation is contained, no such alternatives are feasible at this tim e. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing Exhibit G to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszm an 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 any unrepresented parties. EN TERED : J anuary 18, 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.
