Wilson v. Wexford Medical and Administration/staff at fault et al, No. 3:2018cv00890 - Document 229 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT granting Defendants' 228 MOTION to File Supplemental Disclosure Under Seal; directing that the exhibits attached to the motion be filed as SEALED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/18/2020. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Wexford Medical and Administration/staff at fault et al Doc. 229 Case 3:18-cv-00890 Document 229 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3053 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION TAMMY SHERRELL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:18-cv-00890 WEXFORD MEDICAL and ADMINISTRATION/STAFF AT FAULT, (1990 through present); WARDEN LORI NOHE; J. D. SALLAZ; SUSAN BIRDSONG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHERYL SPENCER; NATHAN BALL; BETSY JIVIDEN; CANDY DAVIS; C. J. RIDER; and HEIDI BEEGLE, R.N., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to File Supplemental Disclosure Under Seal. (ECF No. 228). Having reviewed the motion and attached exhibits, the Court ORDERS that the exhibits attached to the motion, (ECF N0s. 228-1, 228-2), be filed as SEALED. The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent recognizing a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a document, the Court must follow a three step process: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the document; and (3) Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:18-cv-00890 Document 229 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3054 provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the attached documents shall be sealed and will be designated as sealed on the Court’s docket. The Court deems this sufficient notice to interested members of the public. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the Exhibit, but no alternatives to sealing the document are feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be informed is outweighed, at this stage of the litigation, by the interests to be protected in this circumstance. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing only the Exhibits does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and all counsel of record. ENTERED: December 18, 2020
]]>
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.
