Tillman v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Seal its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Exhibits. The Clerk of Court is directed to place under seal Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s response (Doc. 13) and its exhibits (Docs. 13-1, 13-2, 13-3). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 1/12/2018. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SUMMER TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-681-FtM-38CM

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
PICH ALLAN MICHAELS,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant Uber
Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) Motion to Seal its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Remand and Exhibits (Doc. 17) filed on January 10, 2018. Uber seeks to
seal its response to Plaintiff’s motion for remand and the accompanying exhibits
because the response contains Plaintiff’s post-suit confidential settlement demand
and the Tax ID number of Plaintiff’s counsel.
the requested relief.

Doc. 17 at 2.

Plaintiff does not oppose

Id. at 5.

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.09(a),
[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 words
“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. Rule 1.09(a).
Upon review, the Court finds that Uber has sufficiently identified and
described the documents proposed for sealing and sufficiently explained that filing
the documents under seal is necessary.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Seal its Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and Exhibits (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court is directed to place under seal Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s response
(Doc. 13) and its exhibits (Docs. 13-1, 13-2, 13-3).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 12th day of January,
2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-2-