Opinion
CRIMINAL 1:21-cr-00081-MR-WCM
08-22-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENDALL JEROME MILLER, Defendant.
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion to Seal [Doc. 30].
The Defendant moves for leave to file an Addendum [Doc. 31], under seal in this case. [Doc. 30]. For grounds, counsel states that the addendum contains detailed sensitive information not suitable for the public record. [Id.].
Before sealing a court document, the Court must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice and an opportunity 1 to object to the Defendant's motion. The Defendant filed his motion on August 15, 2022, and such motion has been accessible to the public through the Court's electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the Defendant has demonstrated that the addendum contains sensitive information and that the public's right of access to such information is substantially outweighed by the Defendant's competing interests in protecting the details of such information. See United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 492 (4th Cir. 2018). Finally, having considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the document, the Court concludes that sealing of the Addendum is necessary to protect the Defendant's interest in preventing the disclosure of this sensitive information.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion to Seal [Doc. 30] is GRANTED, and the Addendum [Doc. 31] shall be filed under seal and shall remain under seal until further Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2