(a) Clawback Orders.
At the court’s request, or if the parties jointly agree to the entry of an order
governing the clawback of privileged or protected materials that are inadvertently
disclosed, the parties should complete and submit one of the following orders,
which are preferred by the court: Order Governing the Inadvertent Disclosure of
Documents and Materials under Rule 502(b), available on-line at
www.wvsd.uscourts.gov, or Order Governing the Inadvertent Disclosure of
Documents and Materials under Rule 502(d), also available on-line. Motions
seeking to modify the provisions of the approved clawback orders should be made
sparingly and only for good cause.
(b) Protective Orders.
To succeed on a motion for the entry of a protective order shielding information
from dissemination, the movant or movants must demonstrate with specificity that
(1) the information qualifies for protection under FR Civ P 26(c), and (2) good
cause exists for restricting dissemination on the ground that harm would result from
its disclosure. When filing a joint motion for the entry of a protective order, the
movants shall complete and submit with the motion the court’s on-line Protective
Order found at www.wvsd.uscourts.gov. The court’s on-line Protective Order is the
preferred protective order in this district. Therefore, motions requesting
modifications to the provisions of the court’s Protective Order should be made
sparingly and only for good cause.
(c) Sealed Documents.
(1) General. The rule requiring public inspection of court documents is
necessary to allow interested parties to judge the court=s work product in the
cases assigned to it. The rule may be abrogated only in exceptional
circumstances.
Page 26 of 83
(2) Submission. Unless otherwise authorized by law, a motion to seal shall be
filed electronically pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic
Case Filing and accompanied by a memorandum of law which contains:
(A) the reasons why sealing is necessary, including the reasons why
alternatives to sealing, such as redaction, are inadequate;
(B) the requested duration of the proposed seal; and
(C) a discussion of the propriety of sealing, giving due regard to the
parameters of the common law and First Amendment rights of
access as interpreted by the Supreme Court and our Court of
Appeals.
