Franklin v. City of Charlotte

• Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
• Decided: September 17, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00330
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00330-GCM DEBORAH FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

WENDE KERL, CITY OF CHARLOTTE,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on its own motion. The Court has received the parties’ respective motions to seal (ECF No. 17 & 23). Neither party filed a response in the allotted time. The Court now seeks additional briefing from the parties in order to resolve the motions. The parties have already described the materials sought to be sealed. The Court seeks a more detailed statement from each party (1) indicating why sealing is necessary for each document; (2) why there are no alternatives to filing under seal; (3) how long the materials are sought to be maintained under seal; (4) and supporting statutes, case law, or other authority. See Local Civil Rule 6.1. The Court also seeks briefing on what effect, if any, should be given to the Consent Protective Order (ECF No. 12) at the summary judgment stage. See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575–77 (4th Cir. 2004); Pittston Co. v. United States, 368 F.3d 385, 407 (4th Cir. 2004). In no event should these memoranda exceed ten (10) pages. The Court does not request responsive briefing. However, if the parties so desire, a reply not to exceed (5) pages may be made within seven (7) days of the filing of a supplemental memorandum. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including Monday, October 4 to file supplemental memoranda. SO ORDERED.

September 17, 2021 Lbal Graham C. Mullen ‘ United States District Judge Se