UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
BRIAN Z. FRANCE, ) ) No. 3:11-CV-186-MOC-DSC Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MEGAN P. FRANCE, ) MOTION TO SEAL ) ALL COURT FILINGS Defendant. ) )
Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 6.1 and 7.1, The Charlotte Observer Publishing Company d/b/a The Charlotte Observer (“ Charlotte Observer ”) and WCNC-TV, Inc. (“WCNC,” and collectively with Charlotte Observer , the “Media Movants”) submit this Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal All Court Filings.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Charlotte Observer is a daily newspaper published and circulated in Charlotte, North
Carolina and through much of the State of North Carolina and through parts of South Carolina.
WCNC is a television station in Charlotte, North Carolina, affiliated with NBC, which
broadcasts news programming. Media Movants regularly report information regarding the state
and federal civil justice systems, including proceedings involving public and other figures.
Plaintiff Brian Z. France is the Chairman and CEO of NASCAR and a well known national
public figure. The instant action represents the third lawsuit initiated by Mr. France against his
ex-wife in which he has sought to seal records and restrict access to the public in contravention
of the United States Constitution and established case law.
Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 15 On September 11, 2008, Mr. France filed a Complaint against Defendant Megan P.
France in Mecklenburg County District Court (civil action number 08 CVD 20661), alleging Ms.
France breached certain confidentiality provisions in the parties’ Separation Agreement. Rather than initially seeking contractual remedies for Ms. France’s alleged breach, Mr. France instead sought a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to a sealed court file not only in that matter but in all future civil actions related to the Separation Agreement. Media Movants had no
knowledge of this motion and were therefore unable to oppose it. Judge Todd Owens granted
Mr. France’s request, sealing the court files (and his own Order) in 08 CVD 20661 and in all
subsequent (as then unfiled) actions between the two parties (“Owens Order”). However, the
Owens Order expressly stated that the court file could be unsealed “by further order of the
Court.”
On December 31, 2008, Mr. France initiated a second civil action against Ms. France, 08
CVD 28389. 1 In this lawsuit, Mr. France sought contractual remedies for damages, specific performance, or rescission for Ms. France’s alleged breach of the Separation Agreement’s confidentiality provisions. Mr. France also filed a Motion to Seal Proceedings which requested complete closure of all courtroom proceedings to the public. Again, Media Movants had no knowledge of this motion and were therefore unable to oppose it. However, Judge Jena Culler, finding “there was no compelling reason to close the proceedings that outweighed the public’s right to open courts as espoused by the North Carolina and United States Constitutions,” denied
Mr. France’s motion and ordered that the proceedings remain open (“First Culler Order”). Mr.
France appealed the First Culler Order on November 13, 2009 (“Appeal I”).
1 This second action was initially filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, but was then properly transferred to District Court.
- 2 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 2 of 15 On November 17, 2009, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-72.1, Media Movants filed a
Motion to Determine Access in both 08 CVD 20661 and 08 CVD 28389. Media Movants sought to keep the courtroom proceedings open to the public and to unseal the court files in both cases.
On December 18, 2009, Judge Culler granted Media Movants’ motion (“Second Culler Order”).
Specifically she found, “There is no compelling countervailing public or governmental interest to be protected as it relates to the parties that outweighs the public’s longstanding presumptive right to open courts as espoused in the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina statutory law, . . . and the related case law.” On December 21, 2009, Mr. France appealed the Second Culler Order
(“Appeal II”). The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Supersedeas the following day staying enforcement of the Second Culler Order pending the outcome of Appeal II. 2
The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its opinion regarding Appeals I and II on
February 1, 2011. France v. France , --- N.C. App. ---, 705 S.E.2d 399 (2011). The Court
rejected Mr. France’s attempt to close all state court proceedings to the public and affirmed the
trial court’s ruling that the court proceedings would be open. Instead of examining the
constitutionality of the Owens Order sealing all court records, the Court ruled that the trial court
did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Media Movants’ motion seeking access to those
court records. Importantly, however, the Court specifically stated that the Owens Order could be
revisited upon a showing of change in circumstances. 3 Id. at ---, 705 S.E.2d at 405 n. 3. Media
2 Despite the fact that Appeal II was based on Media Movants’ motion, Mr. France refused to serve Media Movants with the transcript or with a proposed record in Appeal II as required by N.C. R. App. P. 11. Mr. France then filed a motion with the Court of Appeals seeking a ruling that Media Movants were “not ‘appellees’ in this appeal.” The Court denied Mr. France’s motion, and Mr. France ultimately served Media Movants with a proposed record on April 5, 2010. Mr. France then filed a Motion for Leave to File Brief under Seal which was also denied by the Court. 3 In this respect, Media Movants vehemently object to Plaintiff’s characterization that the Court of Appeals left “undisturbed Judge Owens’ order sealing all of the court documents filed in the state court action.” (Dkt. 8 at 2, n. 1).
- 3 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 3 of 15 Movants have therefore filed another Motion to Determine Access pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
1-72.1, again seeking access to the filings sealed by the Owens Order based on, inter alia , the
trial court now having subject matter jurisdiction to hear Media Movants’ motion, and also based
on the parties’ own public disclosure of certain documents and information in connection with
the appeals. That motion is currently pending in Mecklenburg County District Court.
On April 15, 2011, Mr. France filed this lawsuit against Ms. France, alleging Ms. France
violated the Federal Wiretap Act by wrongfully recording certain telephone conversations
between the parties. (Dkt. 1). Mr. France seeks damages and an injunction prohibiting Ms.
France from “distributing the contents” of these recordings. Ms. France moved to dismiss the
Complaint (Dkt. 5), stating Mr. France has attempted to bully and intimidate her in the ongoing
state court case. In response to that motion, Mr. France filed a Motion to Seal All Court Filings,
requesting that this court seal “all pleadings, non-dispositive motions, and other documents filed
by the parties with the Court.” (Dkt. 7). Mr. France then filed an Amended Complaint under
seal. (Dkt. 10). Upon information and belief, this Court has not issued an Order sealing any
documents and no Rule 26(e) protective order has been entered in this case.
Media Movants then filed a Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 11), seeking permission to
intervene in this case for the limited purposes of protecting the public’s right to access court
filings and opposing Mr. France’s efforts to unconstitutionally seal the entire court file. On
behalf of the public, Media Movants now oppose Mr. France’s Motion to Seal All Court Filings
and respectfully request that it be denied.
- 4 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 4 of 15 ARGUMENT
PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMMON LAW, MEDIA MOVANTS – AND THE PUBLIC – HAVE A PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE DENIED.
The United States Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have long recognized that the public has a presumptive right of access to court proceedings and judicial records. This right of access is essential to maintaining the integrity of the American justice system. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed while sitting on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
It is desirable that the trial of causes should take place under the public eye, not because the controversies of one citizen with another are of public concern, but because it is of the highest moment that those who administer justice should always act under the sense of public responsibility, and that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself with his own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed.
Cowley v. Pulsifer , 137 Mass. 392, 394 (1884). The Supreme Court cogently expressed this proposition in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia , 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980): “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated:
“Publicity of such records, of course, is necessary in the long run so that the public can judge the product of the courts in a given case.” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post , 386 F.3d 567,
575 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Columbus–America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. , 203
F.3d 291, 303 (4th Cir. 2000)).
Based on this tradition of open courts, the Fourth Circuit has firmly upheld the public’s
presumptive right of access to judicial records. This right of access derives from two sources:
the common law and the First Amendment. Id. at 575. The common law affords the public the
- 5 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 5 of 15 presumptive right of access to all judicial records, and can only be rebutted if countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interest in access. Id. By contrast, the First Amendment right of access only applies to some judicial records, and can only be outweighed if the denial of access is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Id. However, regardless of whether the right of access derives from the common law or the First Amendment, it may be abrogated only in the most unusual of circumstances. Id. at 576.
When presented with a request to seal judicial records or documents, a district court must comply with specific substantive and procedural requirements in weighing the competing interests of access and confidentiality. First, the Court must determine whether the common law or the First Amendment protects the public’s right to access the particular document. Id. Such a
determination is necessary so the Court can apply the proper legal standard. Next, the Court
must give the public notice of the request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the
request. Id. Third, the Court must consider less restrictive alternatives to sealing the judicial
records. Id. Finally, if the Court decides to seal the records, it must state specific findings supporting its decision, including the reasons for rejecting any less restrictive alternatives. Id.
A. Prospective Sealing of All Court Files is Inappropriate Because this Court Cannot Weigh the Competing Interests for Future Court Filings that Currently Do Not Exist.
Where, as here, a party seeks prospective sealing of all non-dispositive court filings, it is impossible for the Court to carry out the required substantive and procedural analysis associated with a motion to seal. In Haas v. Golding Transport Inc. , No. 1:09-CV-1016, 2010 WL 1257990
(M.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2010), (attached hereto as Exhibit A ) the District Court refused to prospectively permit the sealing of documents filed with the court. In that case, the parties submitted a Consent Protective Order that would have permitted the parties to restrict public
- 6 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 6 of 15 access to any filed document by designating the document as “confidential” and filing it under seal without further involvement by the Court. Id. at *8. Recognizing the impossibility of
attempting to analyze all future (and not yet created) documents under the rubric set forth in
State Police , the court refused to sign the proposed order. Id. The court explained that “it is not
clear how the Court could carry out the Fourth Circuit’s procedural requirements” of considering
less drastic alternatives and stating the specific findings for its conclusions. Id. Furthermore, the
Court was unable to identify “any authority from the Fourth Circuit or district courts in the
Fourth Circuit expressly holding that prospective sealing provisions of the sort proposed in this
case comply with the requirements laid out in” State Police and other applicable case law. Id.
Here, just as in Haas , the prospective sealing of all non-dispositive filings sought by Mr.
France is inappropriate and contrary to the applicable law and rules.
First, the Court cannot determine whether the common law or the First Amendment protects the public’s right to access the filed documents in this case because the relevant documents have not even been drafted. Because different legal standards apply to documents covered by the common law compared to documents covered by the First Amendment, the
Fourth Circuit has refused to rule whether particular documents should be sealed where the district court failed to make this threshold determination. See State Police , 386 F.3d at 580; see
also Haas , 2010 WL 1257990 at *7 (noting that the existence of different access standards demands a document by document evaluation).
In his brief, Mr. France wrongly asserts that because he does not seek the sealing of dispositive motions, any documents deserving protection under the First Amendment are not at issue here. (Dkt. 8 at 3, n. 2). However, no court has held that dispositive documents are the only judicial documents receiving protection under the First Amendment. To the contrary, the
- 7 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 7 of 15 State Police court conspicuously withheld judgment on whether hearing transcripts, briefs for
non-dispositive motions, and accompanying exhibits are protected by the common law or by the
First Amendment. Id. Further, courts in other jurisdictions have held that additional documents are entitled to First Amendment protection. See, e.g. , Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino , 380
F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (docket sheets); U.S. v. Brooklier , 685 F.2d 1162, 1165 (C.D. Cal.
1982) (transcripts of indictment proceedings). Thus, it is impossible for this Court to determine
whether the common law or the First Amendment applies until it knows the specific documents
for which sealing is sought. 4
Second, the Court cannot carry out the remaining procedural requirements associated with a motion to seal if Mr. France’s Motion is granted. For example, the Court cannot consider less restrictive alternatives to sealing a particular document because the Court does not even know what the documents will contain. Mr. France states: “Redaction is simply not a viable alternative” based on the conclusory statement that the “information sought to be kept private is so integral to, and pervasive throughout, the judicial documents.” (Dkt. 8 at 6). Of course, this self-serving statement is nothing more than speculation. Mr. France cannot know what the filed documents will contain because they do not yet exist. In this respect, Mr. France’s current motion contains the same defect as his motion to close the state court proceedings. In the state court case, Mr. France sought a wholesale closure of all court proceedings. Media Movants argued – and the North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed – that such a request was overbroad.
The Court wrote: “If, during the course of a proceeding, the trial court determines that any part of the proceeding should be closed to protect a minor child, the trial court remains free to make
4 See § C, infra , for discussion regarding why the only document currently under seal, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should be unsealed pursuant to the First Amendment.
- 8 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 8 of 15 that determination.” France , --- N.C. App. at ---, 705 S.E.2d at 408. Likewise, this Court
remains free (if the need arises) to make the determination that a particular document should be
sealed – on a document by document basis in accordance with the Fourth Circuit’s prescribed
requirements. However, at this initial stage, before any such document even exists, this Court
should reject Mr. France’s overbroad and unconstitutional attempt to prospectively seal virtually
the entire court file.
B. The Sealing of the Court File is Inappropriate Because Mr. France Has Not Established a Sufficient Countervailing Interest.
Even if this Court did have the ability to weigh the competing interests for documents that do not currently exist, and assuming arguendo the common law standard would apply to
these hypothetical documents, Mr. France cannot establish a countervailing interest sufficient to
overcome the general presumption in favor of open court records. Under the common law, the
presumptive right of access to all judicial records can only be rebutted if countervailing interests
heavily outweigh the public interest in access. State Police , 386 F.3d at 575. Here, Mr. France’s
Motion to Seal restates his same unavailing arguments previously rejected by the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.
First, Mr. France argues he would have no redress for his injuries under the Federal
Wiretap Act if the entire court file is not sealed. (Dkt. 8 at 5). Mr. France advanced a similar
argument in state court, contending that he would have no redress for Ms. France’s breach of the
confidentiality agreement if the state court proceedings were not closed to the public. Just as is
the case here, the Court of Appeals held that “[Mr. France] has in no manner been prevented
from proceeding with his action” because his request for closed proceedings was denied.
France , --- N.C. App. at ---, 705 S.E.2d at 408. Additionally, the France court recognized that
- 9 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 9 of 15 under Mr. France’s position, any party with a confidentiality clause in its contract would be entitled to close court proceedings. Id. at 407. Similarly, according to Mr. France’s argument in this case, all claims brought under the Federal Wiretap Act would result in closed court files.
Such a position has no support in either the case law or the Constitution. Because this Court remains free to seal or redact specific documents on a piecemeal basis – in accordance with the proper Fourth Circuit procedure – Mr. France can demonstrate no injury from this Court’s denial of his Motion to Seal All Court Filings sufficient to heavily outweigh the public’s right of access.
Further, the Federal Wiretap Act merely prohibits Ms. France from illegally recording the contents of her telephone conversation with Mr. France. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. The Act does not restrict Ms. France from revealing the contents of the conversations based upon her personal recollection. See id. Thus, no matter the outcome of Mr. France’s Motion to Seal, nothing
prohibits Ms. France from disclosing the contents of those conversations based on her memory.
Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how Mr. France claims a privacy interest in the contents of a
telephone call he knowingly conducted with an adversarial litigant. At any rate, open access to
the court file does not limit Mr. France’s opportunity for redress under the Federal Wiretap Act
because his “redress” does not include the right to permanently prevent Ms. France from
revealing the contents of those discussions.
Mr. France also claims he has a countervailing interest in protecting private financial and
family information. (Dkt. 8 at 5-6). Again, this argument is a rehash of Mr. France’s failed
arguments in state court. While it is true that some courts close access to the public when
matters involving minor children are involved, those cases involve much more serious matters
than what are at issue here. See, e.g. , N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-801, 7B-901 (involving juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court , 457 U.S. 596, 608
- 10 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 10 of 15 (1982) (involving minor rape victims); P.B. v. C.C. , 647 N.Y.S.2d 732, 734 (N.Y. App. Div.
1996) (involving alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence). Furthermore, in Globe
Newspaper , the United States Supreme Court rejected wholesale closure of the court in favor of a case-by-case determination of confidentiality. Notably, if the exceptional circumstance of protecting minor rape victims in Globe Newspaper does not warrant wholesale closure of the
courthouse, then Mr. France’s alleged wiretapping dispute with his ex-wife certainly does not
justify wholesale closure of the court file.
Moreover, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered Mr. France’s same
confidentiality argument and rejected it outright. The Court wrote:
Plaintiff [Mr. France] fails to show that any such right to privacy outweighs the qualified right of the public to open proceedings. Plaintiff cites no authority in support of his claim that any “compelling interest” exists to close the proceedings in the present case for the protection of his children . . . . While a trial court may close proceedings to protect minors in certain situations, such as where a child is testifying about alleged abuse that child has suffered, or adoption proceedings, we can find no case supporting the closing of an entire proceeding merely because some evidence relating to a minor child would be admitted.
France , --- N.C. App. at ---, 705 S.E.2d at 408. Here, Mr. France has only generically described
the purported “sensitive” material as information about Mr. France’s divorce and information
that would purportedly harm Mr. France’s unspecified “personal and business interests.” (Dkt. 8
at 5). Thus, according to his own description, the allegedly sensitive and confidential material is
no different than the type of information commonly seen and heard in open court on a daily basis
(particularly in every divorce or custody action). Despite latching onto language from Nixon v.
Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), Mr. France makes no showing whatsoever that his case involves such “painful” and “disgusting” details to constitute a
- 11 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 11 of 15 countervailing interest sufficient to overcome the public’s right of access, nor are Media
Movants contesting this Motion to “gratify private spite or promote public scandal.”
Mr. France is entitled to no better treatment – and deserves no worse – than any other litigant. If any legitimately sensitive information arises over the course of this litigation, this
Court has the power to place a particular document containing such information under seal or redact it. However, at this time, Mr. France has utterly failed to satisfy the legal threshold for demonstrating a countervailing interest that would merit wholesale closure of the court file.
Finally, Mr. France trivializes the interest of the public in obtaining access to the filed documents in this case. Specifically, Mr. France argues that this case does not involve an
“immensely important historical occurrence,” and that the information could only be used for the
“promotion of a divorce scandal involving a highly regarded public figure.” (Dkt. 8 at 6). Mr.
France’s arguments are misguided. Though it is easy and cliché to accuse the media of trying to create sensationalized stories, as Justice Holmes stated, the courts remain open to the public “not because the controversies of one citizen with another are of public concern,” but because a system of open courts ensures the fair administration of justice for all litigants. Cowley , 137
Mass. at 394. This value is rooted in the American common law tradition. Indeed, that goal is at the heart of Media Movants’ interest in this case, in which Ms. France has alleged that Mr.
France has repeatedly attempted to bully and intimidate her in the ongoing state court proceeding. Here, Media Movants’ primary interest is ensuring that civil justice is applied fairly and evenly, irrespective of the wealth and power of the parties involved. This interest is not outweighed by the tired, redundant, and failed arguments of Mr. France.
- 12 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 12 of 15 C. Mr. France’s Amended Complaint Should Be Unsealed Because It Is Protected Under the First Amendment and the Sealing is Unauthorized Under Local Civil Rule 6.1.
The only document currently filed under seal – Mr. France’s Amended Complaint – is
entitled to First Amendment protection and should be unsealed since there is no compelling
governmental interest to be served by its sealing. Indeed, at least one district court in the Fourth
Circuit has applied First Amendment principles to complaints. See M.P. v. Schwartz , 853 F.
Supp. 164, 167 (D. Md. 1994) (unsealing 49-page complaint alleging severe physical and
emotional abuse of a minor by the county Department of Social Services upon challenge by
newspaper publisher, but redacting the names of the plaintiffs as a narrowly tailored solution to
balance the compelling governmental interest of preserving the confidentiality of the minor
plaintiff with the public’s right of access). Furthermore, the complaint is the foundational
document of each lawsuit. If dispositive motions such as motions for summary judgment are
entitled to First Amendment protection (as conceded by Mr. France in Dkt. 8 at 3, n. 2), then
complaints, which form the very basis for a plaintiff’s claim for relief, are most certainly entitled
to First Amendment protection as well. Though Mr. France curiously did not specifically
address his Amended Complaint in his memorandum of law in support of his motion to seal, he
nevertheless argued the common law standard applied to all court filings relevant to this motion.
Regardless of which legal standard is applied to the Amended Complaint, however, Mr. France
has not met his burden under either common law or the First Amendment (the appropriate
standard) to overcome the presumption of public access. Mr. France’s Motion to Seal should
therefore be denied, and his Amended Complaint should be immediately unsealed by this Court.
Mr. France’s Amended Complaint should also be unsealed because it does not comply
with Local Civil Rule 6.1(B), which states that no document may be filed under seal unless
- 13 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 13 of 15 authorized by (1) Order of the Court, (2) statute, or (3) a previously entered Rule 26(e) Protective
Order. Here, should the Court deny Mr. France’s Motion to Seal All Court Filings, as Media
Movants respectfully contend should occur, there will be no authorization for filing the Amended
Complaint under seal. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint should be unsealed and made available to the public. 5
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Media Movants respectfully request that this Court deny
Mr. France’s Motion to Seal All Court Filings and unseal the Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 6 th day of July, 2011.
s/ Christopher C. Lam Raymond E. Owens, Jr. N.C. State Bar No. 8439 Email: [email protected] Christopher C. Lam N.C. State Bar No. 28627 Email: [email protected] Matthew S. DeAntonio N.C. State Bar No. 39625 Email: [email protected]
K&L Gates LLP Hearst Tower, 47th Floor 214 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 331-7449 Facsimile: (704) 353-3149
Attorneys for The Charlotte Observer and WCNC
5 Out of an abundance of caution so there is no gap in the relief sought, Media Movants have also filed a separate Motion to Unseal Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 14).
- 14 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 14 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL ALL COURT FILINGS was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
James Carlos Smith ([email protected]) Avery Ann Simmons ([email protected]) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP Attorneys for Brian Z. France
Martin L. Brackett, Jr. ([email protected]) Julian Hugh Wright, Jr. ([email protected]) Matthew Felton Tilley ([email protected]) ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P. A. Attorneys for Megan P. France
This 6th day of July, 2011.
s/ Christopher C. Lam Christopher C. Lam North Carolina Bar No. 28627 K&L Gates LLP Hearst Tower, 47 th Floor 214 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 331-7449 Facsimile: (704) 353-3149 [email protected]
Attorney for The Charlotte Observer and WCNC
- 15 - Case 3:11-cv-00186-MOC -DSC Document 13 Filed 07/06/11 Page 15 of 15