Opinion
2:14-cv-15947
04-28-2022
CITYNET, LLC, on behalf of United States of America, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING DEFEND ANTS' REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS
Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal of Defendants Frontier West Virginia, Inc., Kenneth Arndt, Dana Waldo, and Mark McKenzie, (ECF No. 313), requesting their Replies in Support of their Second and Third Motions for Protective Order be filed as sealed. The Court notes that the attached Replies contain confidential information; however, as noted in the motion to seal, Exhibit 3 to the Reply in Support of Third Motion for Protective Order is a publicly available transcript and need not be sealed. Due to the confidential nature of this information, this Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to seal and ORDERS the Clerk to file Defendants' Reply in Support of their Second Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 313-1) as sealed, Defendant's Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 313-2), be filed as sealed and Exhibit 3 to Defendants' Reply in Support of their Third Motion for Protective Order remain unsealed. (ECF No. 313-3). The Motion itself, (ECF No. 313), should not be sealed.
The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth recognizing a presumption in favor of public access to judicial rec Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000). As stated in Ashcraft, document, the Court must follow a three-step process: (1) provide pu request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the d provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to se and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the Replie Defendants' Second and Third Motions for Protective Order shall be s designated as sealed on the Court's docket. The Court deems this su interested members of the public. The Court has considered less dras sealing the documents, but in view of the nature of the information documents-which is information generally protected from public rele to wholesale sealing are not feasible at this time. Accordingly, the Court the Replies in Support of Defendants' Second and Third Motions for does not unduly prejudice the public's right to access court documents Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Replies in Support of Defendants' S Motions for Protective Order, (ECF Nos. 313-1 and 2), under seal.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel unrepresented parties.