Burd et al v. Ford Motor Company, No. 3:2013cv20976 - Document 475 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 262 MOTION to Seal Exhibits A and B to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Challenge Confidential Designation and to Compel and denying Plaintiffs' 360 MOTION t o Seal Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Reply to Ford's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Challenge Confidential Designation and to Compel; directing the Clerk to seal ECF No. 262-1 (Exhibit A) and to unseal ECF Nos. 262 (Motion) and 262-2 (Exhibit B), unseal ECF Nos. 360 (Motion) and 360-1 (Exhibit A) as neither qualifies as confidential or privileged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 9/3/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burd et al v. Ford Motor Company Doc. 475 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., TON Y BU RN ETT, e t al., an d CH ARLES T. BU RD , e t al., Cas e N o .: 3 :13 -cv-0 6 52 9 Cas e N o .: 3 :13 -cv-14 2 0 7 Cas e N o .: 3 :13 -cv-2 0 9 76 Plain tiffs , v. 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 are two Motions to Seal filed by Plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 375, 482).1 Having reviewed the m otions, the Court GRAN TS, in part, and D EN IES, in part, ECF No. 375, and D EN IES ECF No. 482.2 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 1 The docket numbers referenced in this Order are taken from the lead case, Johnson v. Ford Motor Com pany , Case No.: 3:13-cv-0 6529. Corresponding m otions to seal are found at ECF Nos. 299, 399 in Burnett v. Ford Motor Com pany , Case No.: 3:13-cv-1420 7, and ECF Nos. 262, 360 in Burd v. Ford Motor Com pany , Case No.: 3:13-cv-20 976. 2 These rulings also apply to the corresponding m otions in the Burnett and Burd litigations. Dockets.Justia.com 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. With respect to ECF No. 375, which seeks to seal docum ents designated as privileged by Ford Motor Com pany, the Clerk is ORD ERED to seal ECF No. 375-1 and to unseal ECF Nos. 375 and 375-2. As to ECF No. 482, the Clerk is ORD ERED to unseal ECF Nos. 482 and 482-1 as neither qualifies as confidential or privileged. The sealed docum ents 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. 375-1 in its entirety; however, the exhibit includes e-m ail exchanges that are privileged attorney-client comm unications. Although som e portions of ECF No. 375-1 are not privileged or confidential, the electronic docket does not easily perm it partial disclosure of a docum ent. In any event, ECF No. 375-1 consists of discovery m aterials, which arguably are not “judicial records” at all. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec, Inc., 20 10 WL 1418312 at *7 (M.D.N.C. April 2, 20 10 ). In Kinetic Concepts, the Court quoted an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion in which the Fourth Circuit “joined other courts in ‘[h]olding that the m ere filing of a docum ent with a court does not render the docum ent judicial.’” Id. (quoting In re Policy Mgt. Sy s. Corp., 67 F.3d 296, 1995 WL 541623, at *4 (4th Cir. Sept. 13, 1995)). Although the Fourth Circuit has not explicitly resolved the question of whether discovery m otions and m aterials attached to discovery m otions are judicial records, the Court has stated that the right of public access to judicial records attaches only when the records “play a role in the adjudicative process, or adjudicate substantive rights.” In re Application for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 270 3(D), 70 7 F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 20 13). Thus, “[b]ecause discovery m otions ... involve procedural rather than ‘substantive’ rights of the litigants, the reasoning of In re Policy Managem ent supports the view that no public right of access applies [to discovery m otions].” Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 20 10 WL 1418312, at *9; see also In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 20 0 2); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 130 4, 1312 (11th Cir. 20 0 1); United States v. El-Say egh, 131 F.3d 158, 163 (D.C.Cir. 1997); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3rd Cir. 1993). Moreover, the non-privileged portions of ECF No. 375-1 are available in the discovery m aterials m aintained by the parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing ECF No. 375-1 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 : Septem ber 3, 20 15
]]>
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.
