District Court, S.D. West Virginia, 2026

Alan Sigmon v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

Alan Sigmon v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Decided February 20, 2026
Alan Sigmon v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION

ALAN SIGMON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-5296 ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Alan Sigmon filed a Motion asking the Court to, among other things, order Plaintiff to redact sensitive information appearing on the public docket in this case. See ECF 23 pt. V. The Court granted his request and ordered him to file a redacted version of his Complaint and its attached exhibit. See ECF 24 at 2. Plaintiff did so.1 See ECF 29.

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, or, in the Alternative, for Limited Sealing (ECF 30, Pl.’s Mot.). According to Plaintiff, a case related to this one in state court was placed under seal. Pl.’s Mot. 2. Plaintiff says that “continued public association of” his identity with this action “has resulted in inquiries seeking clarification or connection to the sealed state-court matter.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that this places him “in an untenable position: either remain publicly identified in a case . . . and face continued attempts to draw out sealed information, or risk violating a binding court order.” Id. Plaintiff opted not to redact the documents to the extent permitted by the Court. See ECF 24 at 2; ECF 29.

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records. See Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). A district court may, however, “seal documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests... .” /d. (quoting Jn re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984)).

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs interest in being free from “attempts to draw out sealed information” does not outweigh the public’s right of access. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF 30).

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER: February 20, 2026 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.