The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:21 CV 5 MOC WCM
DANTE ANTONIA MURPHY )
)
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER
v. )
)
CLEVELAND COUNTY, CLEVELAND )
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL )
SERVICES, CLEVELAND COUNTY )
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, )
DOUG BRIDGES, )
Individual and Official Capacity, )
KATIE SWANSON )
Individual and Official Capacity )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 13)
(“Motion to Seal”) which requests an Order allowing Defendants to file certain
documents under seal.
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, and they state that two
documents relied upon in their Memorandum of Law supporting that Motion
contain information that Defendants believe is subject to confidentiality
protections. In particular, Defendants contend that they should be allowed to
file under seal a Charge of Discrimination that Plaintiff filed with the EEOC
and the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings, Civil Rights
Division’s Notice of Determination regarding Plaintiff’s Charge of
Discrimination because those documents contain non-public personnel
information that is protected from disclosure by N.C.G.S. § 153A-98 and
information that is confidential pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 and 29 C.F.R. Part
1610, Subpart A,
Defendants view the subject documents as being significant to Plaintiff’s
claims and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss but contend they should be sealed
“so that Defendants can present them to the Court without violating applicable
North Carolina and federal statutes.” Doc. 13-1 at 3. However, Defendants
have not provided authorities finding that the sealing of documents such as
these is appropriate in a federal judicial proceeding. See e.g., Robinson v.
Bowser, No. 1:12CV301, 2013 WL 3791770, at *7 (M.D.N.C. July 19, 2013).
Further, Defendants have not filed an unredacted copy of the materials, as
allowed by Local Civil Rule 6.1(d), or explained why, if sealing is required at
all, partial sealing would not be sufficient.
Under these circumstances, the undersigned will deny the Motion to
Seal. This denial, however, will be without prejudice. Should Defendants wish
to renew their request that these documents be filed entirely under seal,
Defendants should submit a complete unredacted copy of the subject
documents for the Court’s review pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and should
fully address the issues referenced above.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion to Seal is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Signed: April 8, 2021
W. Carleton Metcalf □ iy
United States Magistrate Judge Al