Latham v. United States of America, No. 3:2017cv03998 - Document 302 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT as to Rasheed T. Latham; granting United States' 301 MOTION to Seal Response and Exhibits; directing that Respondent's 303 Response and all exhibits attached thereto be filed as SEALED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/8/2018. (cc: Judge, Movant, counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Latham v. United States of America Doc. 302 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION RASH EED T. LATH AM, Mo van t, v. Cas e N o . 3 :17-cv-0 3 9 9 8 Cas e N o . 3 :15-cr-0 0 14 5-0 3 U N ITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re s p o n d e n t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER SEALIN G D OCU MEN T Pending is Respondent’s Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 30 1), requesting to file under seal, its Response and all exhibits attached thereto. According to Respondent, the Response and attached exhibits contain sensitive inform ation, which has been designated as confidential by Respondent. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the Response and attached exhibits, the Court GRAN TS the m otion and ORD ERS that Respondent’s Response and all exhibits attached thereto 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Response and attached exhibits, but no alternatives to sealing the docum ent are feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be inform ed is greatly outweighed by the interests to be protected in this circum stance. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing Respondent’s Response and the attached exhibits 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 Movant and all counsel of record. EN TERED : J anuary 8, 20 18
]]>
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.
