Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Medical, LLC

Filing 113

ORDER granting 108 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply. Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc. is permitted to file under seal an unredacted copy of Arthrex's Response to Parcus Medical, LLCs Supplemental Reply in Support of Parcuss Motion to Compel Production of C3 Documents 107 .Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/12/2012. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS FLORIDA
ARTHREX, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-cv-694-FtM-29SPC

PARCUS MEDICAL, LLC,
Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of
Sur-Reply (Doc. #108). The Plaintiff, Arthrex, Inc., (“Arthrex”) requests that the Court seal
portions of Arthrex’s Response to Parcus Medical, LLC’s Supplemental Reply in Support of
Parcus’s Motion to Compel Production of C3 Documents (“Sur-Reply”) (Doc. #107). The Local
Rules state in pertinent part:
[u]nless filing under seal is authorized by statute, rule, or order, a party seeking to file
under seal any paper or other matter in any civil case shall file and serve a motion, the
title of which includes the word’s “Motion to Seal” and which includes (i) an
identification and description of each proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing each
item is necessary; (iii) the reason that sealing each item is necessary; (iv) the reason that a
means other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced
by the movant in support of the seal; (v) a statement of the proposed duration of the seal;
and (vi) a memorandum of legal authority supporting the seal. The movant shall not file
or otherwise tender to the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the Court has
granted the motion required by this section.
M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.09(a).
In the instant case, Arthrex requests that its Sur-Reply (Doc. #107) be filed under seal
because it contains a discussion of several documents that the Court permitted to be filed under

seal by Defendant, Parcus Medical, LLC (“Parcus”), on September 21, 2012 (Doc. #94). In
particular, Arthrex cites Exhibits A, B, and D of Parcus’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion to
Compel Production of Arthrex C3 Contracts (Doc. #73) as documents that were filed under seal
and which Arthrex discusses in its Sur-Reply. Arthrex argues that the sealing of its Sur-Reply is
necessary in order to protect the confidential information that is discussed therein, and to honor
the Confidentiality Agreement entered into by Arthrex and Parcus. Further, Arthrex asserts that
sealing is the most appropriate way to protect the information and proposes that the seal remain
in place for as long as necessary for the Court to rule on the Motion to Compel at issue.
Additionally, Arthrex filed a memorandum of legal authority in support of the seal.
Because Arthrex has satisfied the requirements of the Local Rules, and in light of the fact
that the present Motion is unopposed, the Court finds good cause to grant this Motion and allow
Arthrex to file its Sur-Reply under seal.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply (Doc. #108) is
GRANTED.
(2) Plaintiff Arthrex, Inc. is permitted to file under seal an unredacted copy of Arthrex’s
Response to Parcus Medical, LLC’s Supplemental Reply in Support of Parcus’s
Motion to Compel Production of C3 Documents (Doc. #107).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, this 12th day of October, 2012.

Copies: All Parties of Record