Hodge v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety

• Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00016-MR-WCM

MATTHEW HODGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ) OF PUBLIC SAFETY and DIVISION ) OF ADULT CORRECTION AND ) JUVENILE JUSTICE, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Seal Certain Documents Filed in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 32]. The Defendants move for leave to file under seal certain exhibits to their motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 32]. 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 265-66 (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

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 Defendants’ motion. The motion was filed

on January 27, 2021, and it has been accessible to the public through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the Defendants have demonstrated that the exhibits at issue are DPS personnel records that

North Carolina law prohibits from being publicly disclosed, and that the 2 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 the sealing of these exhibits is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting this sensitive information. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Seal Certain Documents Filed in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 32] is GRANTED, and Exhibit A to Declaration of Harold Reep, Exhibit B to the Declaration of Larry Godwin, and Exhibit C to the Declaration of Larry Godwin Judgment shall be filed under seal and shall remain under seal until further Order of this Court. ITIS SO ORDERED, ed: February 9, 2021

Martifi Reidinger ee Chief United States District Judge AS