The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
P.B. as Lawful Guardian Ad Litem )
of Minor Child, Jane Doe, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL CASE NO.
vs. ) 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH
)
BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS )
BOARD OF EDUCATION, LINDA )
BRADSHAW, JOHN ROES 1-10, and )
MICHAEL ANDREW ALEXANDER, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
)
A.B. as Lawful Guardian Ad Litem )
of Minor Child, L.B., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL CASE NO.
vs. ) 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH
)
BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS )
BOARD OF EDUCATION, LINDA )
BRADSHAW, JOHN ROES 1-10, and )
MICHAEL ANDREW ALEXANDER, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to File Under Seal
[Doc. 126] filed by Special Guardian Ad Litem Peggy Saunders (“GAL
Saunders”).
GAL Saunders seeks leave to file under seal a Rule 60(b)(6) Motion
for Relief from Order Approving Settlement for the Benefit of Minors (“Motion
for Relief”). For grounds, GAL Saunders states that this motion provides
personal and sensitive information regarding the minor Plaintiffs as well as
terms of the parties’ settlement agreements, the details of which the Plaintiffs
have agreed to keep confidential. The Defendants consent to the Plaintiffs’
motion to seal. [Doc. 126]. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(d), GAL
Saunders filed the Motion for Relief under seal provisionally pending the
disposition of this motion to seal. [See Doc. 127].
The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749
F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access
extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be
rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the
public interests in access.’” Id. at 255-56 (quoting in part Rushford v. New
Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)). The First
Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated
by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly
2
tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
When presented with a motion to seal, the law of this Circuit requires
this Court to: “(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 to object to the Plaintiffs’ motion. The Plaintiffs filed their
motion on April 22, 2021, and it has been accessible to the public through
the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Motion for Relief contains personal
information regarding the minor Plaintiffs, as well as terms of the parties’
confidential settlement agreements, and that the public’s right of access to
such information is substantially outweighed by the compelling interest in
protecting the details of such information from public disclosure. Finally,
having considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, the
Court concludes that sealing of this motion is narrowly tailored to serve the
3
interest of protecting both the Plaintiffs’ privacy and the confidentiality of the
parties’ settlement agreements.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion to File Under Seal
[Doc. 126] filed by Special Guardian Ad Litem Peggy Saunders is
GRANTED, and the Motion for Relief from Order Approving Minor
Settlements [Doc. 127] shall remain under seal until further Order of this
Court.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to correct the docket such
that it reflects that the Motion for Relief [Doc. 127] is a pending motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 4, 2021
Martifi Reidinger ee
Chief United States District Judge AS