Roe v. Wayne County Board of Education, No. 3:2017cv00094 - Document 45 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT granting Defendant's 44 MOTION to File Exhibit 3 Under Seal; directing that Exhibit 3 to Defendant's 42 MOTION to Compel Interrogatory and Request for Production Responses be filed as SEALED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/20/2017. (cc: defendant; counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roe v. Wayne County Board of Education Doc. 45 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 JAN E ROE, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 3 :17-cv-0 0 0 9 4 W AYN E COU N TY BOARD OF ED U CATION , D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER SEALIN G D OCU MEN T Pending is Defendant’s Motion to File “Exhibit 3” Under Seal. (ECF No. 44). According to Defendant, Exhibit 3 contains protected health inform ation, which has been designated as confidential by Plaintiff. Due to the highly personal nature of Exhibit 3, the Court GRAN TS the m otion and ORD ERS that Exhibit 3 be filed as 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 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, the attached docum ent 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 Dockets.Justia.com drastic alternatives to sealing the Exhibit, but no alternatives to sealing the docum ent are feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be inform ed is greatly outweighed by (1) the interests to be protected in this circum stance; and (2) the fact that the Exhibit is attached to a m otion to com pel discovery, not a dispositive m otion. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing Exhibit 3 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 the defendant and all counsel of record. EN TERED : Decem ber 20 , 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.
