Filed: Oct. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On July 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to seal their motion for summary judgment, supporting memorandum, and all supporting exhibits [D .E. 41]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to seal and a corrected motion to seal her response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment [D.E. 58, 59]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to manually file certain exhibits [D .E. 63]. On August 26, 2014, pl
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On July 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to seal their motion for summary judgment, supporting memorandum, and all supporting exhibits [D .E. 41]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to seal and a corrected motion to seal her response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment [D.E. 58, 59]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to manually file certain exhibits [D .E. 63]. On August 26, 2014, pla..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On July 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to seal their motion for summary judgment, supporting memorandum, and all supporting exhibits [D .E. 41]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to seal and a corrected motion to seal her response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment [D.E. 58, 59]. On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to manually file certain exhibits [D .E. 63]. On August 26, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion and a corrected motion for leave to manually file certain exhibits [D.E. 64, 65]. On September 3, 2014, defendants filed a motion to seal their reply brief [D.E. 67].
The court has considered the motions to seal under the governing standard and has complied with the governing standard. See, e.g., Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246,272-73 (4th Cir. 2014). Defendants' motion to seal their motion for summary judgment [D.E. 41] is DENIED. The motion for summary judgment [D.E. 40] contains no confidential information. Defendants' motion to seal the exhibits in support of the motion for summary judgment [D.E. 41] is GRANTED in light of the confidential information in the exhibits [D.E. 44-51] about the removal of plaintiff's three children and the family's interaction with Pamlico County officials. Defendants' motion to seal their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment [D.E. 41] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In the memorandum oflaw [D.E. 43], pages 1 and 2 up to the "Statement of Facts" do not contain confidential information and need not be sealed. The "Statement of Facts" section on pages 2 through 7 should be sealed due to confidential information. The "Court Proceedings" section and the "Return of the Children" section on pages 7 through 11 need not be sealed. The "Law and Argument" section from page 11 until the fmal paragraph on page 15 need not be sealed. The final paragraph beginning on page 15 and continuing to page 16 should be sealed due to confidential information. The first full paragraph on page 16 and continuing through the end of defendants' memorandum of law need not be sealed.
Plaintiff's motion to seal her response in opposition to summary judgment [D.E. 58, 59] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In plaintiff's response [D.E. 54], pages 1 and 2 up to the "Statement of Facts" need not be sealed. The "Statement of Facts" on page 2 up to the beginning of "Court Proceedings" on page 4 should be sealed due to confidential information. The "Court Proceedings" section of page 4 through the end of plaintiff's memorandum need not be sealed.
Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to manually file certain exhibits [D.E. 63] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for leave to manually file certain exhibits [D.E. 64, 65] is GRANTED. Plaintiff may manually file the exhibits.
Defendants' motion to seal their reply brief [D.E. 67] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The reply brief [D .E. 66] need not be sealed. The exhibits in support of the reply brief [D .E. 66-1-66-10] should be sealed.
SO ORDERED.